TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999

TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 11

1 Boulevard Cafe - Savorie - Montclair Avenue Flank of 390 Spadina Road (Midtown)

2 Extension of Hours of Operation for the Boulevard Cafe - Carlaw Avenue Flank of 552 Danforth Avenue -
Baskin Robbins (Don River)

3 Boulevard Cafe - 3048 Dundas Street West McMurray Street Flank (High Park)

4 Boulevard Cafe Deck - 3367 Yonge Street Feast of Steven (North Toronto)

5 Boulevard Marketing - 1251 and 1253 St. Clair Avenue West (Davenport)

6 Community Improvement Plan Amendment - Downtown Yonge Street Community
Improvement Plan (Downtown and Midtown)

7 Draft By-laws - Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning - Bathurst/Strachan Area (Trinity-Niagara)

8 Draft By-laws - Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning - 1115 and 1121 Bay Street (Downtown)

9 Repeal of By-law No. 449-76 (61- 67 Yonge Street) - Exclusion of 6- 8 Colborne Street (Downtown)

10 Angled Driveway Widening - 107 Briar Hill Avenue (North Toronto)

11 Driveway Widening - 26 Duncannon Drive (North Toronto)

12 Directions Report - Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning - 460 Yonge Street (Downtown)

13 Settlement Report - 1560 Yonge Street, 10 Delisle Avenue and Parts of 22 and 26 Delisle Avenue (Midtown)

14 Alteration of Massey Street in the Vicinity of Adelaide Street West by Narrowing the Pavement
(Trinity-Niagara)

15 Alteration of Musgrave Street in the Vicinity of Victoria Park Avenue by Widening the Pavement
(East Toronto)

16 Directions Report - 86 - 100 Bloor Street West (University Theatre) - Further Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments (Midtown)

17 Variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code - 235 Queens Quay (Downtown)

18 Removal of City-owned Tree - 36 Herbert Avenue (East Toronto)

19 Removal of City-owned Tree - 41 Wayland Avenue (East Toronto)

20 Adjustments to the Parking Regulations - Cumberland Street from Avenue Road to Bellair Street (Midtown)

21 Proposed Closing of the Remnant Portion of the Public Lane crossing Harris Road (Davenport)

22 Extension of Permit Parking Hours on Waverley Road, between Kewbeach Avenue and Kingston Road (East Toronto)

23 Extension of Permit Parking Hours on Northcote Avenue, between Queen Street West and Afton Avenue (Trinity-Niagara)

24 Public Art Plan - Options for Homes - 39 Parliament Street, 80 Mill Street (Gooderham and Worts) (Don River)

25 Public Art Plan - CityPlace Public Art Plan - Railway Lands Central and West (Downtown)

26 Public Art Plan - "Metropolis" 10 Dundas Street East (Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project - Parcel A)
(Downtown)

27 Ontario Municipal Board Decision and Consultants Fees - 50 Prince Arthur Avenue (Midtown)

28 Outdoor Advertising - Sam McBride Ferry

29 Construction of a Pedestrian Bridge - Within the Public Right of Way - Over and Across Jarvis Street to Connect
109 Front Street East to St. Lawrence Market (Downtown)

30 Appointment - Swansea Town Hall Board of Management (High Park)

31 Dedication of Street Name - PC Michael Sweet (Downtown)

32 Litter Receptacle Request - 110 Boultbee Avenue (East Toronto)

33 Disposal and Sale of City-Owned Vacant Land Part of the Remnant Portion of the Public Lane Crossing Harris Road (a Private Road) (Davenport)

34 Adjustments to the Parking Regulations - Bellair Street between Cumberland Street
and Bloor Street West and Yorkville Avenue north side opposite Bellair Street (Midtown)

35 Removal of the "One Hour Maximum" Parking Regulation - Hillsdale Avenue, from
Forman Avenue to Cleveland Street (North Toronto)

36 Request to Lay-out and Dedicate for Public Highway Purposes - City-owned Reserve Strip
abutting the north limit of Lorindale Avenue (North Toronto)

37 Prohibition of Parking on both sides from 12:00 noon to 4:00 a.m. Saturday
and Sunday - Polson Street (Don River)

38 Construction of a Layby - Eglinton Avenue East south side, between Redpath Avenue and Lillian Street
in front of 123 Eglinton Avenue East (North Toronto)

39 Installation/Removal of On-Street Disabled Persons Parking Spaces (Davenport, East Toronto and High Park)

40 Permit Parking on the North Side of the First Lane North of Queen Street West East of Crawford Street (Trinity-Niagara)

41 Sale of City-Owned Former Railway Spur Lands - 21 Richardson Street (Downtown)

42 Proposed Temporary Hoarding - Vicinity of Yonge and Dundas Intersection (Downtown)

43 Temporal Adjustments to existing traffic/parking regulations on streets in the vicinity of Exhibition Place during these events - Annual Caribana and Canadian National Exhibition (Trinity - Niagara and High Park)

44 Proposed Installation of Speed Humps - Orchard View Boulevard, from Edith Drive to Duplex Avenue (North Toronto)

45 Proposed Installation of Speed Humps - Briar Hill Avenue between Avenue Road and Yonge Street (North Toronto)

46 Installation of Speed Humps - Sherwood Avenue from Yonge Street to Mount Pleasant Road
(North Toronto)

47 City Boulevard Adjoining Premises No. 53 Nanton Avenue (Midtown)

48 Proposed Relocation of Traffic Control Signals - The Queensway at Glendale Avenue (High Park)

49 Narrowing of the Pavement on Dufferin Street north of CNE Grounds (Trinity-Niagara)

50 Board of Management of Scadding Court (Downtown)

51 159 and 161 Beatrice Street (Trinity-Niagara)

52 Front Yard Parking - 130 Glen Manor Drive (East Toronto)

53 Boulevard Cafe - Extension of Hours - 2199 Bloor Street West (Future Bakery) (High Park)

54 Ontario Municipal Board - Committee of Adjustment Decision - 120 Heath Street West and Portions of 120 Heath Street West and Nos. 56 and 58 Oriole Road (Midtown)

55 Adjustment of the One Hour Parking Regulation - Margueretta Street between College Street and Bloor Street West (Trinity-Niagara)

56 Suggested Two-Way Traffic Operation - Markham Street between Robinson Street and the first lane north (Trinity-Niagara)

57 Variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code - 297 King Street West (Downtown)

58 Rescindment of the Alternate Side Parking Regulations - Langley Avenue, between
Logan Avenue and Carlaw Avenue (Don River)

59 Request for Endorsement of Events for Liquor Licensing Purposes

60 Unlocking Toronto's Port Lands: Directions for the Future - Forwarding Report (Don River)

61 Other Items Considered by the Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 11

OF THE TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on July 15, 1999,

submitted by Councillor Pam McConnell, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999

Boulevard Cafe - Savorie -

Montclair Avenue Flank of

390 Spadina Road (Midtown)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council again recommends that City Council deny the continuation of the boulevard cafe on the Montclair Avenue flank of 390 Spadina Road.

The Toronto Community Council submits Clause No. 12 of the Toronto Community Council Report No. 8, titled "Boulevard Cafe - Montclair Avenue Flank of 390 Spadina Road (Midtown)", which was referred back to the Toronto Community Council for further consideration and the hearing of deputations at its meeting held on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999:

--------

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Toronto Community Council for further consideration and the hearing of deputations; and the Manager of Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services, was requested to direct the applicant to cease and desist from operating the boulevard café forthwith, pending a Council decision on the applicant's 1999 licence application.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council deny the continuation of the boulevard cafe on the Montclair Avenue flank of 390 Spadina Road.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (May 11, 1999) from the Manager of Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the operation of the boulevard cafe on the Montclair Avenue flankage of 390 Spadina Road. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council deny the continuation of the boulevard cafe on the Montclair Avenue flank of 390 Spadina Road; or

(2) Should City Council approve the continuation of the licence for the boulevard cafe on the Montclair Avenue flank of 390 Spadina Road, with the same terms and conditions as previously approved, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report back at the end of the 1999 cafe season on the operation of the cafe.

Background:

City Council of the former City of Toronto, at its meeting of July 14, 1997, approved the application for a boulevard cafe, notwithstanding the negative response to the public poll on the Montclair Avenue flank of 390 Spadina Avenue on a trial basis for one year only, subject to:

(a) the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;

(b) the patio being closed and cleared by 11:00 p.m., seven days a week;

(d) the applicant agreeing that no music be played within the area of the outside patio and that this also be noted as a condition in the licence.

Comments:

Licences for boulevard cafes are governed by the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. The provisions of the Municipal Code require the applicant approved for a boulevard cafe, prior to receiving a licence or permission to operate a boulevard cafe, to pave the area for cafe purposes, provide a third party liability insurance policy to indemnify the City, pay in advance an annual rental fee for the use of the City boulevard used for cafe purposes and enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto.

Paving of the boulevard was completed in October 1997 and on June 23, 1998, the requisite insurance documentation was received. Subsequently, a licence was issued on June 25, 1998 to Mr. Ian Genua.

Although a licence for the boulevard cafe on the Montclair Avenue flank of 390 Spadina Road was not issued until June 25, 1998, advice of complaint was received on May 19, 1998 through Councillor Adam's office, on behalf of an area resident, that the cafe was operating beyond the 11:00 p.m. closing time restriction and alcohol was being served within the boulevard area. In addition, the complainant indicated that amplified sound, being played inside the restaurant, was being emitted onto the patio area.

Staff met with Mr. Genua, the business operator, to discuss the area resident's concerns pertaining to the operation of the cafe and noise related matters as affecting Montclair Avenue. In addition, Mr. Genua was advised of his responsibility in ensuring that the cafe must be closed and cleared by 11:00 p.m. and all doors and windows, located on the residential flankage (Montclair Avenue), must be closed while there is music or amplified sound being played inside his restaurant.

Following the issuance of the cafe licence, the operation of the boulevard cafe was monitored periodically. Inspections showed that the cafe operated according to the conditions of approval with the exception of one occasion, namely July 10, 1998. Again complaints were received from area residents pertaining to the cafe being operated past the 11:00 p.m. closing time restriction and alcohol being served and consumed within the boulevard cafe area. On July 10, 1998, staff observed that patrons were seated within the cafe area at approximately 11:35 p.m., however, no table service was being provided by the restaurant.

According to Mr. Richard Coulis, Legal Counsel for the Alcohol and Gaming Commission, staff of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission have conducted periodic inspections because of complaints pertaining to the serving of alcohol on the patio and on one occasion observed alcohol being served to the cafe patrons of Savorie Restaurant on July 22, 1998. At a hearing on May 7, 1999 to review the liquor licence application for the outdoor patio, the business operator was issued a suspension of the liquor licence for the restaurant for 5 days (last 2 days of July and first 3 days in August 1999).

In addition, his licence application for the outdoor patio was not approved pending decision on the continuance of the boulevard cafe by City Council.

Conclusions:

On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council approve the continuance of the boulevard cafe on the Montclair Avenue flank of 390 Spadina Road annually under the present terms and conditions imposed by City Council of the former City of Toronto.

Contact Name:

Ken McGuire

Telephone: 392-7564

--------

Ms. Hanya Kizenchuk appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (May 25, 1999) from Mr. David P. Silcox;

- (May 25, 1999) from Mr. John M. Dirks; and

- (May 25, 1999) from Mr. Joseph L. Bloomenfeld, Barristers & Solicitors requesting deferral.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications:

(i) (May 25, 1999) from Mrs. Eyton Jennings, President, York Condominium 33 regarding the issuance of a boulevard cafe license for Montclair Avenue, flankage of 360 Spadina Avenue (Midtown); and

(ii) (June 8, 1999) from Mr. Joseph L. Bloomenfeld, Barristers and Solicitors, on behalf of Savorie Restaurant, requesting that Council either grant an extension of the boulevard cafe license or alternatively, refer this matter back to the Toronto Community Council for further consideration.)

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, and a copy thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (July 7, 1999) from Ms. Sharon Cohen, Dickson MacGregor Appell Burton, Barristers and Solicitors;

- (Undated) submitted by Councillor Adams - Agreed Statement of Facts;

- (Undated) from Mrs. Nonie Jennings;

- (July 13, 1999) from Ms. Rhonda Becker;

- (July 14, 1999) from Mr. Joseph L. Bloomenfeld, Barristers & Solicitors obo Savorie Restaurant;

- (June 8, 1999) from Mr. Joseph L. Bloomenfeld, Barristers & Solicitors obo Savorie Restaurant;

- (Undated) from K.M. Tomory;

- (July 11, 1999) from M.L. Cavanagh;

- (July 11, 1999) from Mr. Alan Dumais;

- (July 10, 1999) from Ms. Barbara Anderson;

- (July 12, 1999) from Mr. Brad Brown and Ms. Donna Zemlickis; and

- (June 8, 1999) from Mr. Joseph Bloomenfeld, Barristers & Solicitors obo Savorie Restaurant.

--------

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council on July 15, 1999, in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. Joseph Bloomenfeld, Barristers & Solicitors, obo Savorie Restaurant;

- Ms. Hanya Kizemchuk, Toronto, Ontario; and

- Mr. John Artibello, Toronto, Ontario.

Extension of Hours of Operation for the Boulevard Cafe -

Carlaw Avenue Flank of 552 Danforth Avenue -

Baskin Robbins (Don River)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council deny the applicant's request for an extension of hours of operation for the boulevard cafe on the Carlaw Avenue flank 552 Danforth Avenue, from 11:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 29, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the business owner's request for an extension of the hours of operation for the boulevard cafe on the Carlaw Avenue flank of 552 Danforth Avenue, from 11:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., 7 days a week. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council deny the applicant's request for an extension of hours of operation for the boulevard cafe on the Carlaw Avenue flank 552 Danforth Avenue, from 11:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., 7 days a week

(2) (a) City Council approve the applicant's request for an extension of hours of operation for the boulevard cafe on the Carlaw Avenue flank of 552 Danforth Avenue, from 11:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., 7 days a week, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Street and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(b) Should City Council approve an extension of the hours, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report back after the end of the 1999 cafe season on the operation of the cafe under the extended hours.

Background:

Mr. Wanis Froundjian, owner of Froun Sweets Company Limited, o/a Baskin Robins, in his letter of June 10, 1999 (Appendix 'A'), has requested an extension of the hours of operation for the boulevard cafe fronting 552 Danforth Avenue and on the Carlaw Avenue flankage from 11:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Comments:

Boulevard cafes on residential flankages are governed by the criteria set in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, which requires that the owner or occupant shall ensure that the boulevard cafe is closed and cleared by 11:00 p.m. or, where Council has authorized extended hours of operation, the closing time as authorized by Council.

Our records indicate that a licence for a boulevard cafe on the Carlaw Avenue flankage of 552 Danforth Avenue was issued to Mr. Froundjian on February 20, 1996 with an 11:00 p.m. closing time restriction.

Subsequently, Mr. Froundjian submitted a further application requesting permission to operate a cafe fronting 552 Danforth Avenue and a licence was issued to Mr. Froundjian on June 7, 1999 with no closing time restriction.

On Appendix 'B', we have shown the licensed cafe areas fronting 552 Danforth Avenue and on the Carlaw Avenue flankage.

Our records show that no complaints have been received pertaining to noise or the business operation. In addition, we have consulted with a representative of Toronto Police Services, Division No. 55, who advised that no complaints regarding the business operation are on file.

The City Clerk's office has notified the owners and occupants within 120 m along both sides of Carlaw Avenue, from the licensed cafe, advising of Mr. Froundjian's request.

Conclusions:

On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant the extension of hours of operation for the boulevard cafe on the Carlaw Avenue flankage of 552 Danforth Avenue.

Contact Name:

Ken McGuire

Telephone: 392-7564

(A copy of Appendix A, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on July 15, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Baskin Robbins

(Appendix B)

Boulevard Cafe - 3048 Dundas Street West

McMurray Street Flank (High Park)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe on the McMurray Street flank of 3048 Dundas Street West, notwithstanding the negative result of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(2) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report back to the Toronto Community Council after the end of the 1999 cafe season on the operation of the cafe.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 29, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the business owner's appeal of staff's refusal of an application for a boulevard cafe on the McMurray Street flank of 3048 Dundas Street West. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe on the McMurray Street flank of 3048 Dundas Street West; OR

(2) City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe on the McMurray Street flank of 3048 Dundas Street West, notwithstanding the negative result of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

Mr. John Ward, owner of Renaissance Emporiums Inc., o/a Axis Gallery and Grill, 3048 Dundas Street West, Toronto, Ontario M6P 1Z3, submitted an application on March 9, 1999, requesting a licence for a boulevard cafe on the McMurray Street flank.

Comments:

The proposed cafe area is approximately 55.9 sq. m., as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'A'). It can accommodate 13 tables, with a potential seating capacity of 50 people.

We have examined this application and have determined that it meets the physical criteria for boulevard cafe privileges as set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

However, as the proposed cafe flank a residential zone, the Municipal Code requires a public poll of owners and tenants within 120 m from the proposed cafe. If the majority of the ballots cast are in favour of the application, the application is approved. If the majority are opposed, the Commissioner must deny the application. If there is a negative response, re-polling for the same purpose may not take place until 2 years have passed from the closing date of the previous poll.

A poll dated April 21, 1999 to May 21, 1999 was conducted on McMurray Street, between Nos. 11 to 39 and 18 to 40, including 3048 and 3050 Dundas Street West, to determine neighbourhood support. The poll was conducted in English and French (i.e. every person polled received the ballot form in 2 languages). The results of the poll were as follows:

Polling Summary

Ballots cast opposed 4 in favour 2	6
No response	32
Returned by post office	23
Total ballots issued	61

Mr. John Ward was advised in writing that given the negative poll, a licence could not be issued.

Mr. John Ward, in a communication dated June 14, 1999, (Appendix 'B') appealed the decision of staff and has requested that his appeal be heard, as a deputation item, at the next Toronto Community Council meeting.

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue Mr. Ward a licence for a boulevard cafe on the McMurray Street flank because the poll result was negative. I am satisfied that the public poll was conducted properly.

On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant the appeal.

Contact Name:

Ken McGuire

Telephone: 392-7564

--------

Mr. John Ward, Toronto, Ontario appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

--------

(A copy of Appendix B, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on July 15, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Insert Table/Map No. 1

3048 Dundas Street West

Boulevard Cafe Deck - 3367 Yonge Street

Feast of Steven (North Toronto)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) City Council permit a temporary boulevard cafe at 3367 Yonge Street; and

(2) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the applicant, report to the Toronto Community Council, in the fall of 1999, on a permanent solution.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 29, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the business owner's appeal of staff's denial of an application for a boulevard cafe deck at 3367 Yonge Street. As this is a request for an exception from Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council deny the applicant's request for a boulevard cafe deck at of 3367 Yonge Street;

(2) City Council approve the applicant's request for the construction and maintenance of a boulevard cafe deck at 3367 Yonge Street.

Background:

Mr. David Poynton, solicitor for Feast of Steven Inc., in his letter dated May 11, 1999, has requested an appeal of staff's decision to deny permission for a wooden deck in connection with a licensed boulevard cafe fronting 3367 Yonge Street.

Comments:

Boulevard cafes provide a significant contribution to animating street activity. Given the proliferation of cafe operators requests for removable cafe decks and to ensure that the physical connection between the cafe and adjacent pedestrian is maintained, Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, provides specific criteria for the construction of decks within the road allowance as follows:

(a) Boulevard cafe decks only be permitted on sidewalks or boulevards that exceed a slope of 5% and over;

(b) The deck should be no higher than what is required to accommodate a level area and the deck framing members (which should be the minimum depth required);

(c) Where the distance between grade and the top of the deck is greater than the total thickness of the deck and framing member, a skirt or screen should be provided;

(d) When wood is used for the decking, skirt, uprights or railing, it should be treated, painted or stained;

(e) When wood is used for uprights, post widths should not exceed 0.10 m x 0.10 m (4 x 4 inches), top and bottom railings should not exceed 0.06 m x 0.09 m (2.5 x 3.5 inches), and pickets or balusters should not exceed 0.04 m x 0.04 m (1.5 x 1.5 inches); the spacing between the pickets or balusters should not exceed 0.10 m (4 inches);

(f) A minimum width of 1.03 m (3.3 ft.) break in the railing must be provided at the high side of the slope to provide wheelchair access;

(g) Boulevard cafe decks are not to be constructed over existing underground services (i.e. hydro vaults, chambers, maintenance holes, etc.) unless written approval is given by the public utility;

(h) Should future installation of services within the boulevard area be required, the boulevard cafe owner, upon receipt of a 30 day notice, be required to remove the boulevard cafe deck;

(i) The boulevard cafe deck be removed at the end of the cafe season; and

(j) The boulevard cafe owner be required to enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto.

A licence was issued to Mr. Steven Hall, president, Feast of Steven Inc. in February 1996, for a boulevard cafe fronting 3367 Yonge Street.

Our review of 3367 Yonge Street has determined that there is a portion of the boulevard fronting the location which measures approximately 0.66 m in width which is sloped upward towards the building wall and the slope slightly exceeds 5%, 6% while the remainder of the sidewalk is relatively flat. In this particular case, it is felt that the sloped area of the boulevard is minimal and does not pose a hazard for patrons or negatively impacts on the cafe seating area. Under the circumstances, Mr. Poynton was advised that we could not consider an application for a deck at 3367 Yonge Street and this was conveyed to him in our letter of April 27, 1999.

For your Committee's information, a licensed boulevard cafe immediately to the north of 3367 Yonge Street, at 3369 Yonge Street has similar boulevard conditions and the cafe has operated for several years without the need of a boulevard cafe deck.

Appendices 'A' and 'B' are photos of the boulevard cafe areas at 3367 and 3369 Yonge Street.

Conclusions:

The criteria set out in Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code allow business owners an opportunity to modify the abutting streetscape by installing a removable deck within licensed cafe areas in cases where the existing grade of the sidewalk is substantial to operate a boulevard cafe safely.

In this particular case, the slope fronting 3367 Yonge Street is minimal and does not pose a hazard for patrons or negatively impacts on the cafe seating area and therefore, a deck is not warranted at this location.

On hearing of deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant the appeal to permit a cafe deck at the frontage of 3367 Yonge Street.

Contact Name:

Ken McGuire

Telephone: 392-7564

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the communication (May 11, 1999) from Mr. David C. Poynton, Donahue & Partners, on behalf of Feast of Steven Inc. (The "Feast"), and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

--------

Mr. David Poynton, Donahue & Partners, obo the applicant, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

3367 Yonge Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

3367 Yonge Street

Boulevard Marketing -

1251 and 1253 St. Clair Avenue West (Davenport)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted the following recommendations:

"It is recommended that:

(1) City Council reinstate the boulevard marketing fronting 1251 St. Clair Avenue West and issue a licence for boulevard marketing at 1253 St. Clair Avenue West and such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(2) the report dated July 23, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, embodying the following recommendation, be adopted:

'That, should City Council approve the reinstatement of the boulevard marketing licence fronting 1251 St. Clair Avenue West and grant a licence to display merchandise fronting 1253 St. Clair Avenue West, as shown on Appendix "A", and, if a further infraction for excessive marketing is issued to the licence holder of 1251 and 1253 St. Clair Avenue West, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be directed to report to the Toronto Community Council on the cancellation of the boulevard marketing licences and the licence holder be given the opportunity to be heard by the Committee.' ")

The Toronto Community Council submits this matter to Council without recommendation.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to line the sidewalk appropriately and, in consultation with the Ward Councillors, to report directly to Council on how the enforcement of the proposed boulevard marketing could be assured.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 29, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the applicant's request to reinstate his boulevard marketing licence fronting 1251 St. Clair Avenue West and his request for a licence to display merchandise fronting 1253 St. Clair Avenue West. Given that City Council at its meeting of June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, approved the cancellation of the previously licensed boulevard marketing area fronting 1251 St. Clair Avenue West and denied the applicant's request for marketing fronting 1253 St. Clair Avenue West, we are reporting on the applicant's request. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council deny the applicant's request to reinstate the boulevard marketing fronting 1251 St. Clair Avenue West and the application for boulevard marketing fronting 1253 St. Clair Avenue West;

(2) City Council reinstate the boulevard marketing fronting 1251 St. Clair Avenue West and issue a licence for boulevard marketing at 1253 St. Clair Avenue West and such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

City Council of the former City of Toronto, at its meeting of June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, approved the cancellation of the boulevard marketing licence fronting 1251 St. Clair Avenue West, subject to:

(a) a 30 day written notice of cancellation being provided to the licence holder; and

(b) the licence holder being refunded the unexpired portion of the annual boulevard marketing fee.

In addition, City Council refused the application for boulevard marketing fronting 1253 St. Clair Avenue West.

Comments:

Because of complaints about excessive marketing and curbside displays from the Corso Italia B.I.A., other business operators in the immediate area and the general public, staff had to inspect 1251 St. Clair Avenue West at various times since the boulevard marketing licence was issued. Despite repeated written warnings from the Department to stop over-marketing, staff had to lay charges against the business operator Mr. Ali Topyurek. Furthermore, Mr. Topyurek was advised that if the abuse of his privileges continued, it would result in a review of his licensed marketing and additional by-law enforcement measures, including the seizing of his merchandise.

Although Mr. Topyurek had submitted an application requesting a licence to display merchandise on the sidewalk abutting 1253 St. Clair Avenue West, because of the ongoing problems at 1251 St. Clair Avenue West, the licence was not issued. Notwithstanding this, Mr. Topyurek continued to display merchandise at 1253 St. Clair Avenue West without a licence. Charges were laid against Mr. Topyurek on April 3, 1998 for unauthorized marketing fronting 1253 St. Clair Avenue West.

Due to neighbourhood concerns, Councillor Betty Disero requested us to report on the cancellation of boulevard marketing fronting 1251 and 1253 St. Clair Avenue West. Subsequently, City Council of the former City of Toronto approved the cancellation of the marketing licence fronting 1251 St. Clair Avenue West and denied the application for permission for marketing fronting 1253 St. Clair Avenue West.

Mr. Topyurek was advised in writing on June 16, 1998 of City Council's decision and on July 17, 1998, his marketing licence fronting 1251 St. Clair Avenue West was cancelled.

Mr. Topyurek, on behalf of 1227924 Ontario Inc., o/a Berxwedan Fruits and Vegetables Market, 1251 St. Clair Avenue West, has now submitted an application on April 27, 1999, to reinstate his marketing licence. Mr. Topyurek is requesting permission to display fruits and vegetables. In addition, Mr. Topyurek has submitted an application on behalf of Budget Discount Dollar Power, 1253 St. Clair Avenue West, requesting a licence to display dollar type store merchandise fronting the location.

For the Toronto Community Council's information, while on routine patrol on April 15, 1999, inspection found a display of merchandise fronting 1251 and 1253 St. Clair Avenue West, without the authority to do so. This resulted in the seizure of a large number of crates of fruits and vegetables from 1251 St. Clair Avenue West and a large quantity of dollar store merchandise from 1253 St. Clair Avenue West.

Staff met with Councillor Disero, on-site, on May 18, 1999, to review the applicant's proposals and because of the concerns of the neighbouring businesses, Councillor Disero has requested that additional clearances be required from the proposed marketing areas fronting 1251 and 1253 St. Clair Avenue West to entrances to neighbouring businesses and 2nd storey residences. On Appendix 'A', we have indicated the proposed marketing areas fronting 1251 and 1253 St. Clair Avenue West, together with the suggested clearances to the neighbouring business and residential entrances.

Conclusions:

Given that City Council had directed that the marketing licence fronting 1251 St. Clair Avenue West be rescinded and a licence for marketing fronting 1253 St. Clair Avenue West be denied, we are reporting on the applicant's proposal to reinstate the licence fronting 1251 St. Clair Avenue West and the request for a licence fronting 1253 St. Clair Avenue West.

On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant the appeal to reinstate the boulevard marketing licence fronting 1251 St. Clair Avenue West and permission for a licence fronting 1253 St. Clair Avenue West.

Contact Name:

Ken McGuire

Telephone: 392-7564

Insert Table/Map No. 1

1251 and 1253 St. Clair Ave W

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, Clause No. 54 of the Toronto Community Council Report No. 6, titled "Cancellation of Boulevard Marketing - 1251 St. Clair Avenue West and Denial of Boulevard Marketing - 1253 St. Clair Avenue West (Davenport)", which was adopted, without amendment, by City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998.

--------

(A copy of Appendix A, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on May 27, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

--------

The following person appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. Domenic Tagliola, Monaco Boiani Demarco; and

- Mr. Giuseppe Defilippis, Toronto, Ontario.

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 23, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report directly to City Council as directed by the Toronto Community Council on a request to reinstate the boulevard marketing licence fronting 1251 St. Clair Avenue West and for a licence to display merchandise fronting 1253 St. Clair Avenue West.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

That, should City Council approve the reinstatement of the boulevard marketing licence fronting 1251 St. Clair Avenue West and grant a licence to display merchandise fronting 1253 St. Clair Avenue West, as shown on Appendix 'A', and, if a further infraction for excessive marketing is issued to the licence holder of 1251 and 1253 St. Clair Avenue West, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency be directed to report to the Toronto Community Council on the cancellation of the boulevard marketing licences and the licence holder be given the opportunity to be heard by the Committee.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of July 15, 1999, in considering our report (June 29, 1999) entitled "Boulevard Marketing Applications - 1251 and 1253 St. Clair Avenue West", deferred consideration of the matter and requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to line the sidewalk appropriately and, in consultation with the Ward Councillors, to report directly to Council at its meeting of July 27, 1999, on how the enforcement of the proposed boulevard marketing could be assured (Clause No. 5 of Report No. 11 of Toronto Community Council).

Comments:

In response to Toronto Community Council's request, staff have consulted with the Ward Councillors who have agreed, because of the concerns of the neighbouring businesses and residents in 2nd storey residences to an amended area fronting 1251 and 1253 St. Clair Avenue West from the applicant's original proposal. On Appendix 'A', we have indicated the reduced marketing areas fronting 1251 and 1253 St. Clair Avenue West.

Should City Council decide to proceed with the licensing of boulevard marketing areas fronting 1251 and 1253 St. Clair Avenue West and in order to assist the business operator in confining his marketing area to the permitted limits, arrangements will be made to paint the boundaries of the licensed marketing areas and to post sketches of the licensed marketing areas in the front windows of the businesses. This will also assist the by-law enforcement staff.

We will monitor the locations periodically, including weekends to ensure that the marketing is confined to the licensed areas and if an infraction occurs charges will be laid automatically and the merchandise in excess of the permitted limits will be seized.

In addition, should a further infraction for excessive marketing be issued to the licence holder of 1251 and 1253 St. Clair Avenue West, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be directed to report to the Toronto Community Council on the cancellation of the boulevard marketing licences and the licence holder be given the opportunity to be heard by the Committee.

Conclusion:

In consideration of the previous problems associated with excessive marketing, it is recommended that if it is City Council's decision to reinstate the boulevard marketing licence fronting 1251 St. Clair Avenue West and to issue a licence to display merchandise fronting 1253 St. Clair Avenue West, the boulevard marketing areas should be amended from the applicant's original proposal as shown on Appendix 'A' of this report.

Contact Name:

Ken McGuire, Supervisor, Construction Activities, District 1

Telephone: 392-7564)

Insert Table/Map No. 1

1251 and 1253 St. Clair Ave W

Community Improvement Plan Amendment

- Downtown Yonge Street Community

Improvement Plan (Downtown and Midtown)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) a by-law to amend the Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Plan be passed substantially in the form attached to the report (July 12, 1999) of the City Solicitor and that authority be granted for introduction of the necessary bill in Council; and

(2) the recommendations in the report (June 23, 1999) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that notice of the public meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act. The public meeting was held on July 15, 1999, and Mr. Zak Khan, Toronto, Ontario, addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 12, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To provide a draft by-law which, if passed by City Council, would amend the Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Plan in accordance with recommendations in the report (June 23, 1999) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning And Development.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The Commissioner has advised of the financial implications in the accompanying report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) The Toronto Community Council hold a public meeting in respect of the draft by-law in accordance with the Planning Act.

Following the public meeting and in the event that the Toronto Community Council wishes to recommend passage of the draft by-law, it could recommend that:

(2) A by-law to amend the Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Plan be passed substantially in the form attached to the report (July 12, 1999) of the City Solicitor and that authority be granted for introduction of the necessary bill in Council; and

(3) The recommendations in the report (June 23, 1999) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development be adopted.

Council Reference/Background/History:

As noted in the Commissioner's report, the Council of the former City of Toronto passed By-law No. 1996-0135 designating an area as the Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Area for the purpose of carrying out several initiatives, including the Commercial Facade Improvement Grant and Loan Program. The Plan has been amended once to accommodate the "Regeneration Program", an important component of which is the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project. The attached by-law would constitute the second amendment.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

At its meeting of July 15, 1999, the Toronto Community Council will have before it the Commissioner's report (June 23, 1999) recommending that the Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Plan be amended further by extending its boundaries so that additional properties may be considered under the existing facade improvement grant program.

Conclusions:

If enacted, the draft by-law will amend the Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Plan by extending its boundaries in accordance with the Commissioner's recommendations.

Contact Name:

John A. Paton, Legal Division

Telephone: 392-7230; Fax: 397-4420; E-mail: jpaton@toronto.ca

--------

DRAFT BY-LAW

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. , Clause No. , as adopted by Council on

Enacted by Council:

To amend further former City of Toronto By-law No. 1996-0135, being "A By-law To designate certain lands in the Downtown Yonge Street Area as a Community Improvement Project Area and to adopt a Community Improvement Plan for the Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Project Area."

WHEREAS by enacting By-law No. 1996-0135, the Council of the former City of Toronto designated and adopted a community improvement plan for the Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Project Area;

AND WHEREAS by approving By-law No. 1997-0196 of the former City of Toronto, the Ontario Municipal Board enacted Amendment No. 1 to the community improvement plan;

AND WHEREAS by enacting By-law No. 363-1999 City Council has expanded the Community Improvement Project Area;

THEREFORE the Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1. The Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Plan, as adopted by By-Law No. 1996-0135 of the former City of Toronto and as amended by By-law No. 1997-0196 of the former City, as enacted by the Ontario Municipal Board, is amended further by adopting the following:

The Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Plan Amendment No. 2

1.0 Background:

The former City of Toronto Council enacted By-law No. 1996-0135, designating Downtown Yonge Street as a Community Improvement Project Area and adopting a Community Improvement Plan for the area generally along Yonge Street between Richmond and Grenville Streets. A number of community improvement initiatives have been undertaken in this area including a Commercial Facade Improvement Grant and Loan Program.

The Ontario Municipal Board amended the Community Improvement Plan (Amendment No. 1) in an Order dated November 25, 1998, approving By-law No. 1997-0196 of the former City of Toronto, a by-law "To amend the Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Plan to incorporate the Regeneration Program into the Plan in order to facilitate the implementation of the regeneration strategies developed under the Regeneration Program". Under the Regeneration Program, the City has undertaken the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project at the corner of Yonge and Dundas Streets.

The current Plan contains a map which defines the boundaries of the Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Project Area, the area being consistent with the Project Area by-laws adopted by the former City of Toronto Council as By-law No. 1996-0135 as amended by By-law No. 1996-0420.

In order to expand the Community Improvement Project Area for the use of the Commercial Facade Improvement Grant and Loan Program, City Council enacted By-law No. 363-1999 at its meeting of June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, expanding the existing Project Area to the north from Grenville Street to Davenport Road.

2.0 Authority provided by Section 28 of the Planning Act and the former City of Toronto Official Plan

(a) Section 28 of the Planning Act

The intent of Section 28 of the Planning Act is to provide jurisdiction for municipalities to undertake a broad range of community improvement initiatives which address the economic and social well-being of the community and may have regard for area specific concerns such as deficiencies in public amenities or the poor condition of buildings.

This area of Yonge Street has prominence with both the local downtown community and visitors and tourists. While this area does not suffer from blight, it has experienced retail changes which include a change in the retailing mix, turnover and vacancy, deterioration of building facades, including many historic buildings and changes in rent and tax structures.

(b) Section 15 of the former City of Toronto Official Plan

Section 15 of the former City of Toronto Official Plan contains community improvement policies which include the broad goal of economic and social well-being, objectives of community improvement programs and activities, measures to be used by Council and objectives with respect to commercial area improvement. In selecting areas for community improvement, considerations which need to be taken into account include the need for improved appearance or increased public amenities, the efforts of local business associations to promote their area, opportunities to co-ordinate improvements with other public works and the priority given to retail strips.

The extension of the Community Improvement Plan to the area of Yonge Street outlined in this amendment is consistent with these policies and approaches and meets the selection criteria set out in the Official Plan.

This area of Yonge Street is designated as a Priority Retail Street and a Prominent Area. Applicable policies support the need to restore and reinvest in this area as an important downtown Toronto pedestrian shopping street.

3.0 Review of implementation within the existing Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Project Area

The existing facade improvement program has been in place since March 1996. In the last three years, 18 grant applications have been approved. $330,000 in City funds has been allocated to the program with an additional $80,000 for 1999. To date, the private sector investment spin-off related to these applications has been substantial: approximately $2.5 million has been spent on exterior renovations and $6.0 million has been spent on interior work. Other reinvestment in the area includes the reconstruction of the Eaton Centre exterior from Queen to Dundas Streets, the Atrium redevelopment north of Dundas Street, the Metropolis project at the northeast corner of Yonge and Dundas Streets, a new public square being constructed by the City and numerous other new tenants and related improvements.

It is desirable to build on this success and encourage the reinvestment in Yonge Street to spread north.

4.0 Character and Planning Objectives respecting the expanded Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Project Area

The expanded project area north of College Street generally along Yonge Street between Grenville Street to the south and Davenport Road to the north is the second segment of Yonge Street downtown which has traditionally been considered as Toronto's main pedestrian shopping street. The expansion area contains approximately 251 properties, including some larger properties which occupy entire block frontages and many multi-tenanted properties.

Unlike the area to the south between College and Queen, this northerly segment of downtown Yonge Street, while providing a tourist attraction, also plays a role as a local shopping street, providing a range of local convenience goods and services. The main characteristics of the expansion area include:

- local convenience shops and services (e.g. hair stylists and coffee shops) are common although a lack of food merchants is evident

- restaurants and fast food outlets are common throughout the area

- speciality clothing stores are common (e.g. surplus, second hand, shoes, leather)

- speciality services are common (e.g. cosmetics, tattoos, adult videos

- the pattern of narrow storefronts and lots is apparent from the variety of shops, services and buildings

- the appearance of the street is dominated by historic storefronts and buildings, with a variety of signage, both permanent and temporary in nature

- vacancies and a lack of refurbishment tends to be more apparent south of Wellesley Street with more storefront reinvestment and greater tenant variety closer to Bloor Street

- sidewalks are narrow and the amenity of the street scape is limited especially considering the pedestrian volumes

Approximately 17 vacant storefronts were counted in the area in June 1999. Short term tenancies (e.g. book sale outlets and liquidators) were also evident.

A significant characteristic is the predominance of historic buildings, often in strips of storefronts which are visible as one travels along Yonge Street. There are 146 properties listed on Heritage Toronto's List of Heritage Properties in the Project Area and 20 properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act (data current to 1998). An important objective with facade improvement will be to maintain this fabric through renovation as an alternative to wide scale redevelopment. It is important to retain the large number of historic buildings as part of the history of Yonge Street and the City. The visual interest for pedestrians and the contribution of these buildings to the aesthetic appearance of the street are a public benefit.

A second planning objective is to improve economic viability and to provide support to this area as a retail shopping street. New investment will help reduce vacancies and turnover and reinforce the area's role and function as a shopping street and a tourist attraction. Facade renovations will contribute to the revitalization of the business environment, the aesthetics of the street, the vibrancy of the area, supporting street animation and public safety.

A third important planning objective to be achieved through facade improvement and retail reinvestment in this area will be to provide an improved retail environment for the new housing development in the area east and west of Yonge Street, for office building conversions which have taken place at Yonge and Wellesley Streets and for the hotel reconstruction taking place at 475 Yonge Street.

5.0 Other Community Improvement Initiatives in the area

Community improvement through facade renovations is the principal purpose of this amendment to the existing Community Improvement Plan. Other community improvement initiatives in this area which the City has been working on over the past ten years include the provision of open space (e.g. the greening of Parking Lot 2), the provision of parking (e.g. Charles/Hayden garage) and street scape improvements (e.g. Bloor Yorkville and Yonge Street road and sidewalk reconstruction). Facade improvement in the area should be considered as part of a comprehensive strategy to improve the quality of life in this very urban and dense downtown community.

6.0 Nature and Implementation of the Community Improvement Plan Amendment

(a) Nature of amendment

There are two amendments:

(i) Funding provisions

The Community Improvement Plan as it existed before this amendment provided two options for funding facade improvements, either through grants that are provided as tax credits on the tax bill or through loans. These provisions are amended to also allow the payment of the grant or loan to be made in cash to the property owner following satisfactory inspection of the approved improvement by City staff.

(ii) Term of the Program

The Community Improvement Plan as it existed before this amendment provided for a term of three years from March 1996. The term is extended by an additional three years from the date this amendment is adopted by City Council.

(b) Applicability of the Community Improvement Plan

While not technically part of the Community Improvement Plan, through Amendment No.1 approved by the Ontario Municipal Board, the Plan now includes a map containing the existing Community Improvement Project Area generally between Richmond and Grenville Streets along Yonge Street. The expansion area described in this report has been adopted as a Project Area by By-law No. 363-1999 and is not technically required to be part of the Plan. The amended policies of the Plan apply throughout the entire Project Area from the existing southerly boundary at Richmond Street to the new northerly boundary at Davenport Road, generally along Yonge Street.

Consultations have been held with the Yonge Street Small Business Association, Bloor Yorkville Business Improvement Area, the Yonge Street Business and Resident Association and area Councillors. The existing facade improvement program between Richmond Street and Grenville Street along Yonge Street has been implemented with the co-operation of a community-based committee which reviews facade improvement applications. Improvement design guidelines for modern or older buildings with modern facades and for older buildings which retain all or portions of their original character are set out in the original Plan and are generally applicable in the expanded Project Area. As in the case of the original Project Area, emphasis in the expanded area will be placed on older buildings which retain all or portions of their original character, including listed or designated properties.

On April 29 and 30, 1996, the former City of Toronto Council authorized the Director of Economic Development to approve commercial facade grants in accordance with the Community Improvement Plan. This process has worked well and will be continued within the expanded improvement area. The process will include liaison with Heritage Toronto as appropriate, given the large number of historic buildings. Implementation of the program will be undertaken by the Managing Director of Economic Development.

Other than the amendments set out above, the program details, eligibility and application process are unchanged from the initial Plan approved by the former City of Toronto Council.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (June 23, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To provide recommendations for the adoption of Amendment No.2 to the Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Plan, in order to facilitate the continuation of the facade improvement grant program within the existing Project Area generally bounded by Richmond Street and Grenville Street along Yonge Street and within the newly expanded Project Area generally between Grenville Street and Davenport Road along Yonge Street.

Financial Implications:

Funds for commercial facade improvement grants which would be authorized by the Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Plan are approved in the 1999 Capital Budget for Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Plan be amended by adding Amendment No. 2 substantially as set out in this report;

(2) leave be granted for the introduction of the necessary Bills in Council to give effect to the foregoing; and

(3) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to undertake the steps necessary to implement the Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Plan Amendment No. 2 as set out in this report.

Background:

The former City of Toronto Council enacted By-law 1996-0135, designating Downtown Yonge Street as a Community Improvement Project Area and adopting a Community Improvement Plan for the area generally along Yonge Street between Richmond and Grenville Streets. A number of community improvement initiatives have been undertaken in this area including a Commercial Facade Improvement Grant and Loan Program.

The Ontario Municipal Board amended the Community Improvement Plan (Amendment No. 1) in an Order dated November 25, 1998, approving By-law 1997-0196 of the former City of Toronto, a by-law "To amend the Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Plan to incorporate the Regeneration Program into the Plan in order to facilitate the implementation of the regeneration strategies developed under the Regeneration Program". Under the Regeneration Program, the City has undertaken the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project at the corner of Yonge and Dundas Streets. By-laws 1996-0135 and 1997-0196 are attached to this report in Appendix A.

The current Plan by-law contains a map which defines the boundaries of the Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Project Area, the area being consistent with the Project Area by-laws adopted by the former City of Toronto Council as By-law 1996-0135 as amended by By-law 1996-0420.

In order to expand the Community Improvement Project Area for the use of the Commercial Facade Improvement Grant and Loan Program, City Council enacted By-law 363-1999 at its meeting of June 9. 10 and 11, 1999, expanding the existing Project Area to the north from Grenville Street to Davenport Road (see Appendix B).

The purpose of this report is to outline the purpose and content of an amendment to the Community Improvement Plan which would be implemented within the existing and newly expanded Community Improvement Project Area.

Authority provided by Section 28 of the Planning Act and the former City of Toronto Official Plan

(a) Section 28 of the Planning Act

(b) Section 15 of the former City of Toronto Official Plan

The extension of the Community Improvement Plan to the area of Yonge Street outlined in this report is consistent with these policies and approaches and meets the selection criteria set out in the Official Plan..

This area of Yonge Street is designated as a Priority Retail Street and a Prominent Area, policies which both support the need to restore and reinvest in this area as an important downtown Toronto pedestrian shopping street.

Review of implementation within the existing Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Project Area

It is desirable to build on this success and encourage the reinvestment in Yonge Street to spread north.

Character and Planning Objectives respecting the expanded Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Project Area

- local convenience shops and services (e.g. hair stylists and coffee shops) are common although a lack of food merchants is evident

- restaurants and fast food outlets are common throughout the area

- speciality clothing stores are common (e.g. surplus, second hand, shoes, leather)

- speciality services are common (e.g. cosmetics, tatoos, adult videos)

- the pattern of narrow storefronts and lots is apparent from the variety of shops, services and buildings

- the appearance of the street is dominated by historic storefronts and buildings, with a variety of signage, both permanent and temporary in nature

- vacancies and a lack of refurbishment tends to be more apparent south of Wellesley Street with more storefront reinvestment and greater tenant variety closer to Bloor Street

- sidewalks are narrow and the amenity of the streetscape is limited especially considering the pedestrian volumes

Approximately 17 vacant storefronts were counted in the area in June 1999. Short term tenancies (e.g. book sale outlets and liquidators) were also evident.

Other Community Improvement Initiatives in the area

Community improvement through facade renovations is the principal purpose of this amendment to the existing Community Improvement Plan. Other community improvement initiatives in this area which the City has been working on over the past ten years include the provision of open space (e.g. the greening of Parking Lot 2), the provision of parking (e.g. Charles/Hayden garage) and streetscape improvements (e.g. Bloor Yorkville and Yonge Street road and sidewalk reconstruction). Facade improvement in the area should be considered as part of a comprehensive strategy to improve the quality of life in this very urban and dense downtown community.

Nature and Implementation of the proposed Community Improvement Plan Amendment

(a) Nature of proposed amendment

There are two amendments proposed:

(i) Funding provisions

The current Community Improvement Plan provides two options for funding facade improvements, either through grants that are provided as tax credits on the tax bill or through loans. It is proposed that these provisions be amended to also allow the payment of the grant or loan to be made in cash to the property owner following satisfactory inspection of the approved improvement by City staff.

(ii) Term of the Program

The current Community Improvement Plan provides for a term of three years from March 1996. It is proposed that the term be extended by an additional three years from the date the amendment is adopted by City Council.

(b) Applicability of the Community Improvement Plan

While not technically part of the Community Improvement Plan, through Amendment No.1 approved by the Ontario Municipal Board, the Plan now includes a map containing the existing Community Improvement Project Area generally between Richmond and Grenville Streets along Yonge Street. The expansion area described in this report has been adopted as a Project Area by By-law 363-1999 and is not technically required to be part of the Plan. The amended policies of the Plan will be applicable throughout the entire Project Area from the existing southerly boundary at Richmond Street to the new northerly boundary at Davenport Road, generally along Yonge Street. These areas are shown on the maps attached to the by-laws appended to this report.

On April 29 and 30, 1996, the former City of Toronto Council authorized the Director of Economic Development to approve commercial facade grants in accordance with the Community Improvement Plan. This process has worked well and is proposed to be continued within the expanded improvement area. The process will include liaison with Heritage Toronto as appropriate, given the large number of historic buildings. Implementation of the program will be undertaken by the Managing Director of Economic Development. Economic Development staff have been consulted and concur with the contents of this report.

Other than the amendments proposed above, the program details, eligibility and application process are unchanged from the initial Plan approved by the former City of Toronto Council.

Contact Name:

Gregg Lintern Danny Bellissimo

Community Planning Division Economic Development

South District, East Section South District

Telephone: (416) 392-7363 Telephone: (416) 312-0623

Fax: (416) 392-1330 Fax: 392-1380

E-mail: glintern@toronto.ca E-mail: dbelliss@toronto.ca

--------

Appendix A

No. 1996-0135. A BY-LAW

To designate certain lands in the Downtown Yonge Street Area as a Community Improvement Project Area and to adopt a Community Improvement Plan for the Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Project Area.

(Passed March 4, 1996.)

WHEREAS subsection 28(2) of the Planning Act provides that the council of a municipality which has an Official Plan which contains provisions relating to community improvement, may by by-law designate the whole or any part of an area covered by such an Official Plan as a Community Improvement Project Area;

AND WHEREAS The Corporation of the City of Toronto has an Official Plan containing provisions relating to community improvement which covers the lands described in the map attached as Schedule "A";

AND WHEREAS Council at its meeting of October 16, 1995 by the adoption of Clause 46 of Executive Committee Report No. 24 authorized the designation of certain lands abutting Yonge Street and described on Schedule "A" as a Community Improvement Project Area;

AND WHEREAS Council, by the adoption as amended, of Clause 35 of Executive Committee Report No. 6, at its meeting held on January 22, 1996 authorized the adoption of a Community Improvement Plan as described in Schedule "B" for the Downtown Yonge Street Commercial Area as a Community Improvement Project Area;

THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the City of Toronto enacts as follows:

1. The area outlined by a heavy line shown on the map attached as Schedule "A" is designated as a Community Improvement Project Area within the meaning of section 28 of the Planning Act.

2. The Community Improvement Plan attached as Schedule "B" is adopted as the Community Improvement Plan for the Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Project Area.

BARBARA HALL, BARBARA G. CAPLAN

Mayor. City Clerk.

Council Chamber,

Toronto, March 4, 1996.

(L.S.)

SCHEDULE "A"

Schedule "B"

The Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Plan

Council approved the improvement principles and guidelines for Yonge Street by adopting the Downtown Yonge Street Improvement Plan at its meeting on July 24, 1995.

The Community Improvement Plan conforms with the City's Community Improvement policies set out in the City of Toronto's Official Plan and proposes a range of joint private and public improvement initiatives which are of a public benefit.

Notification of the December 6, 1995 public meeting to discuss the Community Improvement Plan was provided in the Globe & Mail newspaper on November 6, 1995.

1. Background

On July 24, 1995 City Council approved the Downtown Yonge Street Improvement Plan (see Appendix) and requested that I report back on the designation of the Downtown Yonge Street Improvement Area as a Community Improvement Project Area under the Planning Act. Also, Council requested that I report back on the future applicability of the Facade Improvement Loan Program to Yonge Street and on the implementation of streetscape improvements. The Plan recommended a number of joint publicly and privately funded improvement initiatives for public benefit.

1.1 Designation of the Improvement Area

On October 16, 1995 Council passed By-law No. 1995-0630 thereby designating the Downtown Yonge Street Improvement Area as a Community Improvement Project Area for the purpose of implementing a range of public and private property improvement projects. The boundaries of the Area are indicated on Map 1 Schedule "A", entitled "Community Improvement Project Area" in the Appendix of this report.

1.2 Authority provided by Section 28 of the Planning Act

Once a By-law has been passed designating an area as a Community Improvement Project Area, the Planning Act authorizes Council to provide for the preparation of a plan suitable for adoption as a Community Improvement Plan for the Community Improvement Area.

The Act gives Council broad enabling powers to acquire land, construct, repair or rehabilitate buildings, to lease or dispose of land acquired or held by it, to make grants or loan to land owners as an exception to the Municipal Act provisions respecting bonusing, enter into agreements with other levels of government and the private sector or issue debentures for the purpose of the Community Improvement Plan.

Subsection 28(7) of the Act authorizes the City to make grants or loans to registered or assessed owners of property within Community Improvement Project Areas towards the cost of rehabilitating land and buildings in conformity with a Community Improvement Plan and with the Minister of Municipal Affairs' approval, can do so even where a grant or loan would constitute bonusing under section 111 of the Municipal Act.

1.3 City's general commercial improvement policy, as articulated in the Part I Official Plan

Section 15.7 through 15.10 of the Official Plan Part I are policies which encourage the improvement of the City's commercial areas. Programs and activities which may be undertaken include upgrading streetscapes, encouraging renovation of buildings and improvements to public amenities. Considerations in selecting areas and projects include the need for an improved appearance or increased public amenities in the area, the efforts of local business associations to promote and upgrade and the opportunity to coordinate with other programs. Measures to be used include capital improvements, assisting local businesses and encouraging the organization of business associations.

Section 3.5 and Map 4 of the City's Official Plan identifies Prominent Areas and Sites which give the City its distinctiveness (see page 20, Appendix 5.5). It is the policy of Council to sustain and enhance these areas of Yonge Street, including the Yonge-Dundas Intersection, as a designated Prominent Area.

The Downtown Yonge Street Improvement Plan, adopted by Council on July 24 1995, provides the framework around which implementation of these policies can occur.

1.4 Planning Policy and Supports to the Economic Viability of Downtown Yonge Street

The Official Plan designations for the subject community improvement area are "Low Density Mixed Commercial-Residential Area" on Yonge Street north of Dundas Street, and "High and Medium Density Mixed Commercial-Residential Area" south of Dundas Street.

Planning policy reflects a desire to maintain Yonge Street as a pedestrian retail street where intense and specialized retail activity can function and support other downtown activities.

Implementation of a commercial facade improvement project will support this policy and compliment other revitalization initiatives including streetscape improvements.

1.5 Status of the City of Toronto's Commercial Facade Improvement Loan Program

The City's Commercial Facade Improvement Loan Program was initiated in 1988 under the authority provided by Section 28 of the Planning Act.

The Program permits the City of Toronto to lend the owners of property located within specific designated commercial districts the money they require to renovate the exterior of their building facades in accordance with approved improvement guidelines. The loans are interest-free for the first twelve months. A below-market rate of interest is then charged for the remainder of the loan term. The loan rate is determined to be the prime rate plus 1%.

The maximum amount of the loan per property is $15,000 and the term of amortization is not to exceed:

- 3 years for loan principals between $1,000 and $7,499;

- 5 years for loan principals between $7,500 and $15,000.

The loan program is financed by a revolving fund which was initially set at $100,000. At this time $73,449 is available in this revolving fund. Loans are disbursed from this fund, and loan repayments are deposited into it.

To date the revolving fund has been sufficient to accommodate the demand for the loans. If applications for loans should significantly increase in the future, Council may consider increasing the Reserve Fund (the program guidelines approved in 1988 recommended that the fund be gradually increased to the half a million dollar level).

To date the Parkdale Village, Old Cabbagetown, Queen/Broadview Village and Bloorcourt Village BIA's have participated in the Program. The Commercial Facade Loan Programs for the Queen/ Broadview Village BIA and the Bloor-court BIA expired on December 31, 1993. The Commercial Facade Loan Programs for the Old Cabbagetown BIA and for the Parkdale Village BIA are scheduled to end in early 1996.

2. Downtown Yonge Street Commercial Facade Improvement Grant and Loan Program

The Downtown Yonge Street Improvement Plan (June 1995) states on Map 2 that the City will:

- encourage property owners to improve existing building facades

- review the opportunity for a public/private historic facade restoration improvement project with the Toronto Historical Board, the Yonge Street Association and other levels of government

A Facade Improvement project contributes to the 1996 Yonge Street Bicentennial, downtown business revitalization, the preservation of historically significant buildings and the enhancement of Yonge Street's image.

By way of this report and by designating the Downtown Yonge Street Improvement Area as a community improvement area, this area will be eligible for funds from the Commercial Facade Loan Program for three years from the date the Community Improvement Area By-law comes into force.

In order to provide some encouragement and impetus to implement facade improvements, the Toronto Eaton Centre has offered to match a City contribution of $5,000 to engage a building facade design consultant to provide design ideas to applicants on the east side of Yonge Street, across from the Eaton Centre, from Dundas Street to Queen Street. I believe that such design advice would be beneficial in having a successful program.

The consultant will work together with a community consultation committee and property owners to develops some proposals.

2.1 The Yonge Street Business and Resident Association

The Executive Committee of the Yonge Street Business and Residents Association, Inc. at its September 1995 meeting supported the City's initiative for a facade improvement project for Yonge Street.

The Association stated in a letter to this department dated September 19,1995 (copy of letter in the Appendix) that Yonge Street has greater commercial potential as a principal axis in the City core. The Association also indicated its willingness to help promote a facade improvement project.

2.2 Funding and amount of grant/loan for the Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Area

Our experience under the Commercial Facade Improvement Loan Program has shown us that there needs to be more publicity and direct contact with property owners in order to encourage participation.

The current low rates of interest means that offering relief from interest payments are insufficient incentives. Therefore, it is recommended that the Downtown Yonge Street Commercial Facade Program also include a grant option in addition to the loan.

Depending on the financial situation of the applicant, funds are to be made available by way of a grant or a loan. The applicant will indicate on the application the preference of receiving a grant or a loan. Procedural details for receiving the grant/loan are indicated in the Appendix of this report.

A total of ninety-eight properties are eligible for this program. It is expected that approximately 15% of the properties will be refurbished over the three year term of the program at an approximate total cost of $180,000.

2.3 Purpose of Funding

The central objective of the program is to encourage the upgrading of the appearance of storefronts and building facades. The program thereby contributes towards the enhancement and preservation of the City's architectural heritage, and supports the efforts made by the City and The Yonge Street Business and Resident Association to improve the business environment and aesthetics of this older retail strip. Applicants will be given the choice of applying for either a grant or a loan.

Grants

The grant option is to be funded from property taxes owing by the property owner/applicant to the Corporation of the City of Toronto. The grant will appear as a credit on the property owner's City's portion of the tax bill, following satisfactory inspection of the approved improvement by city staff.

The amount of the grant will be 50% of eligible costs up to a maximum of $5,000 for each 20 linear feet of frontage of a property located on Yonge Street within the Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Area. The maximum amount of the grant is $20,000 per property.

Loans

The loan option is to be financed from the existing City of Toronto's Commercial Facade Loan Program revolving fund which at this time has $73,449 available. Repayments for the loans disbursed from this fund are to be deposited into the revolving fund.

Program Term

The term of the program is for a period of three years from the date the Community Improvement Plan is approved.

2.4 Preliminary Design Guidelines and Eligible Facade Improvements

Staff from my department have collaborated with staff from the Toronto Historical Board to propose the following preliminary design guidelines and a list of building elements which would be eligible under this program. I will put in place a community consultation process which will provide me with advice when reviewing application proposals.

The portion of Yonge Street between Queen Street and Gerrard Street contains very different building styles - from restored heritage structures to very modern buildings. Many are older buildings, which have been altered or "modernized" over the years. However, two basic categories can be established for the Downtown Yonge Street Commercial Facade Improvement

Program. These are:

1. buildings which are modern or an older building with a completely modern facade,

2. older buildings which retain all or portions of their original character. This category would include properties on the City of Toronto's Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Emphasis should be placed on the second category of buildings. These buildings in general require more work and have more potential to define and create the character of Yonge Street from Queen to Gerrard Street.

Guidelines for Category 1 Buildings

- Buildings should retain their original design

- Emphasis should be placed on the maintenance of these buildings (cleaning and repairing the facade). Where repairs are made original materials should be used

- Design changes to these buildings should be sympathetic to the character of the building and in harmony with the neighbouring buildings

- Signage should be sympathetic to the character of the building and restricted to traditional areas of the facade. Signage should be limited on the upper floors

Guidelines for Category 2 Buildings

- Buildings should be brought back to their original appearance. Emphasis should be placed on maintaining and returning upper floors to their original character while the ground floor storefronts if not restored should be designed to be in keeping with the character of the property. Designs for structures included on the City of Toronto's Inventory of Heritage Properties will require a review by the Toronto Historical Board

- Individual elements of Category 2 buildings would be eligible for funding including repair and cleaning of exterior, window refurbishment or replacement, corniced eave or roof work which is visible from the street, and original or early decorative work, exterior doors, signboard cornices, storefronts and any other items deemed important to the character of the facade.

- Signage should be carefully considered and restricted to traditional areas of the facade. Signage should be limited on the upper floors and not detract from the character of the facade.

2.5 Eligibility for Grant/Loan

Property owners of all buildings located within the Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Area are eligible to apply. The Planning Act requires that the applicant be the registered owner of the property. The owner must have all property taxes, water rates and other sums owing to the City fully paid before the grant/loan is approved. All exterior work to the building necessary to meet the City's building code and by-laws shall be completed as may be determined by the City's Commissioner of Buildings and Inspections Department. This work is eligible for funding under the Program.

Any additional rehabilitation work to the facade can be undertaken without City of Toronto approval subject to the obtaining of a building permit where required. There are no additional restrictions on demolitions except that any outstanding loans and any accrued interest must first be repaid to the municipality. Any necessary demolition permits and Historical Board permission must also be obtained.

3. Streetscape Improvements

There is a need to renew various streetscape features within the public and private open space on and adjacent to Yonge Street.

The Downtown Yonge Street Improvement Plan adopted by Council on July 24, 1995 demonstrates that the vitality of the downtown core is an important and ongoing priority for the City. It recommended that I prepare plans and drawings for the physical improvements in consultation with the Department of Public Works and the Environment and the Parks and Recreation Department. Concept streetscape improvement proposals have been prepared and are attached in the Appendix of this report. These proposals are being reviewed by the various City and Metro Departments for implementation beginning in 1996.

The Eaton Centre has budgeted approximately $140,000 for improvement to the open space in the public realm which also includes improvement to open spaces which are on private property, such as the open space adjacent to the Eaton Centre on Dundas Street West as well as on Yonge Street. The Eaton Centre has already implemented some improvement such as tree planting on Dundas Street West and an outdoor cafe with pedestrian scale lights and hanging flower baskets on Yonge Street.

4. Economic Opportunities and Other Opportunities

A broader conceptual plan for revitalization of Yonge Street and the downtown is emerging.

As opportunities arise for economic development, the City may wish to exercise its authority to assemble land to accomplish its overall goal of economic growth and renewal. Provincial officials have advised us that the City may be required to amend this community improvement plan should certain negotiations for land acquisitions be entered into. I will report back should the need arise to amend the Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Plan.

The Corporation for the City of Toronto can play a role in helping the Yonge Street Business and Resident Association implement its Mission Statement:

"The Yonge Street Business and Resident Association will be a proactive, representative mix of small and large Yonge Street businesses and residential owners working to reestablish downtown Yonge Street as Canada's preeminent retail, business, residential, cultural and social district. YSB&RA will direct its efforts to making Yonge Street the best place in Canada to live, work, visit and play."

New businesses are being attracted to Yonge Street such as, most recently, the proposed Sports Authority and Tower Records, presently under construction.

--------

Appendix A

By-law 1997-0196, as amended

Approved by the Ontario Municipal Board by Order dated November 25, 1998

No. 1997-0196. A BY-LAW

To amend The Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Plan to incorporate the Regeneration Program into the Plan in order to facilitate implementation of regeneration strategies developed under the Regeneration Program.

(Passed _____, 1998.)

WHEREAS the former City of Toronto Council at its special meeting held on May 6, 1997 amended and adopted Clause 1 of Land Use Committee Report No. 5 authorizing an amendment of The Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Plan to incorporate the Regeneration Program into the Plan in order to facilitate implementation of regeneration strategies developed under the Regeneration Program;

AND WHEREAS the former City of Toronto Council, at its Meeting held on the 6^th and 7^th day of October, 1997, adopted Clause 3 of Executive Committee Report No. 23 and in doing so, requested that the Ontario Municipal Board modify By-law 1997-0196;

AND WHEREAS the Joint Board of the Ontario Municipal Board and the Board of Inquiry, constituted under the Consolidated Hearings Act, conducted a hearing regarding Official Plan, Community Improvement Plan Amendment referrals and Zoning By-law appeals;

AND WHEREAS the Joint Board, has pursuant to its Order No. ___ Folio No. dated ___ 1998, deemed it advisable to amend By-law 1997-0196;

THEREFORE the Joint Board orders as follows:

1. The Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Plan as adopted by section 2 of By-law No. 1996-0135 is amended by adopting the following:

The Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Plan

Amendment No. 1

1.0 Background

City Council approved the Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Plan at its meeting on March 4, 1996 (By-law 1996-0135). At that meeting, City Council also approved the Downtown Yonge Street Regeneration Program, a collaborative initiative between the City of Toronto and the Yonge Street Business and Resident Association Inc.

Both the Community Improvement Plan and the Regeneration Program conform with the City's Community Improvement policies set out in the City of Toronto's Official Plan.

The purpose of this amendment is to incorporate the Regeneration Program into the Community Improvement Plan in order to facilitate implementation of regeneration strategies developed under the Program.

Notification of the February 27, 1997 Public Meeting to discuss the Community Improvement Plan amendment was provided in the Toronto Star newspaper on February 7, 1997 in accordance with the Planning Act.

2.0 Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan and Project Area

At its meeting of September 16, 1996, City Council amended By-law 1996-0135 by adopting By-law 1996-0420 to adjust the boundaries and increase the size of the Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Project Area. This amendment includes modifications which incorporate the Project Area into the Plan as Schedule A to the by-law. This amendment deletes the lands known municipally as 54, 60, 64 and 74 Dundas Street East, 98, 104 and 110 Bond Street from the Plan. This amendment to the Community Improvement Plan applies to the Project Area as shown on the attached Schedule A.

3.0 Rationale for Regeneration

The regeneration of Yonge Street as a main shopping street with new retail and entertainment premises and the improvement of the environment of the street with improved public amenities is a key to maintaining the economic and social well-being of the downtown and the region.

While the City has begun regeneration with a number of cosmetic improvements such as facade and streetscape improvement, more substantial change is required to overcome significant barriers to renewal including:

- few premises on the Street have been upgraded to suit the needs of contemporary retailing (eg. HMV, Superior Restaurant);

- there is not enough of the right kind of space in the right location to create a critical mass of new retail and entertainment uses;

- of all the retail space between College and Queen Streets, approximately 80 percent is not "on the Street" - it is inside large developments, internalized from the Street. While this space is important to keep people shopping downtown, there has to be a balance of good space accessed from the Street as well;

- consultations undertaken through the Regeneration Program have clearly indicated a great need to create the perception and the reality of substantial change to the current environment of the Street;

- there is an inactive Business Improvement Area on the east side of Yonge Street and a lack of "ownership" on the Street due to dominance of short term tenancies;

- fractured land ownership of small parcels and a lack of private land assembly initiatives has prevented substantial renewal on Yonge Street; and

- the vicinity of Yonge and Dundas is a prominent location yet it suffers from vacancy, poor property maintenance and violation of municipal by-laws, lack of reinvestment and underutilization and a lack of public amenities.

As Toronto's main shopping street and its traditional pedestrian promenade, Yonge Street retailing provides the glue which ties the important functions of the downtown together, enlivening the Street and symbolizing the health and vitality of the City.

While Regeneration responds to the problems on the Street, Regeneration is also well-timed to take advantage of market trends which are seeing retail and entertainment uses move back to street locations in urban centres across North America.

4.0 Goals and Objectives

The goal of Regeneration is to:

"substantially increase the proportion and range of the residents of the Greater Toronto Area and visitors who use Downtown Yonge Street".

The objectives of Regeneration are to:

a) to identify and implement measures needed in order to improve the appearance, safety and cleanliness of the Street, actual and perceived;

b) to develop and implement promotions which improve public attitudes to the Street and attract new customers to the Street;

c) to market the opportunities of the Street to retail and entertainment businesses on the Street with a view to substantially increasing their number and quality; and

d) to define re-use and redevelopment opportunities on the Street which will expand the availability of good quality premises for retail and entertainment uses and improve the Street as a retail and entertainment environment.

The goals and objectives of Regeneration are consistent with the City's Official Plan and the proposed designation of Downtown Yonge Street as a Reinvestment Area.

5.0 Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project

In order to achieve the goal and objectives of Regeneration and overcome the barriers to renewing the Street, significant change on the Street is required. Lands in the vicinity of the Yonge and Dundas Streets intersection, by virtue of their optimum locational characteristics, are recognized as the most appropriate and desirable location at which to achieve significant change.

A redevelopment containing a mix of uses primarily for retail and entertainment purposes with well-designed public amenities would best represent this change. Uses which attract a large number and variety of people such as multi-screen cinemas and hotels are important components. Other uses which tend to locate in close proximity to these uses such as retail and restaurant establishments are desirable. Public amenities which change the character of the Street and improve its relationship to retail, mixed-use development in the vicinity and Ryerson University are important.

The Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project has been conceived to provide opportunities as outlined above. City Council approved the concept in-principle on December 9 and 10, 1996 in order to begin implementation of this project. The Project is reviewed in more detail in the Project Plan, available from City of Toronto Urban Development Services, City Planning Division.

Implementation of the Project necessitates that City Council be provided with mechanisms to creatively achieve the development in a timely manner.

6.0 Other Regeneration Initiatives

Regeneration initiatives provide for the implementation of the Regeneration Program including the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project and other regeneration initiatives as may be identified from time to time within the Community Improvement Project Area. Other initiatives may include:

a) encouraging building rehabilitation and re-use at strategic locations throughout the Community Improvement Project Area;

b) improving linkages, connections and relationships between Yonge Street, the business community and Ryerson Polytechnical University;

c) facilitating improvements to large mixed-use developments within the area where an improved street relationship would be desirable and consistent with the Plan, including the Toronto Eaton Centre, Atrium-on-Bay and College Park; and

d) other initiatives which may be defined from time to time.

7.0 Regeneration Strategies

City Council may undertake the Regeneration Strategies set out below as mechanisms to achieve the goal and objectives of this Plan provided the undertaking is consistent with the policies of this Community Improvement Plan and in accordance with Section 28 of the Planning Act. Of particular importance is the need to ensure that all undertakings involving land disposition including sale, lease or otherwise, for redevelopment purposes and subject to Zoning By-law amendments shall not be completed until the coming into force of By-law amendments. Strategies may be employed as finite undertakings or in combination as follows:

a) municipal land acquisition for the purposes of redevelopment of lands within the Community Improvement Project Area;

b) disposition including sale, lease or otherwise, of municipal land, including lanes, portions or segments of municipal rights-of-way, lands utilized for municipal parking facilities and other land the City may own or lease or have acquired to any private, public, or public/private development corporation or consortia within the Community Improvement Project Area for the purpose of achieving redevelopment which is consistent with the goal and objectives of the Plan;

c) disposition including sale, lease or otherwise of conditional land acquisition agreements or options between the City and any person to any other person or public and/or private development corporation or consortia;

d) soliciting interest and participation from private or public/private development corporations or consortia for redevelopment opportunities or land disposition including sale, lease or otherwise, which may include the following methods: industry consultation, calls for expressions of interest, requests for qualifications and requests for proposals;

e) joint venture partnerships including "build-operate-transfer", "design-build and Turn-key", leasing and development of public components of a multi-use facility;

f) in relation to the redevelopment of land within the Project Area, the municipality may approve of redevelopment opportunities or land disposition including sale, lease or otherwise, involving those parties referred to in d) above, in order to achieve primary municipal objectives relating to the regeneration of Downtown Yonge Street in accordance with the following criteria:

i) improvement of Downtown Yonge Street as a retail and entertainment district is achieved;

ii) prime tenants necessary for the success of the project as a catalyst for regeneration are secured;

iii) municipal financial risk and exposure to loss is reduced;

iv) opportunities in the marketplace are secured in a timely manner;

v) the goal and objectives for Regeneration set out in this Plan are achieved; an

vi) interest and participation of the private sector is solicited in a manner consistent with the methods set out in this Plan;

g) municipal land acquisition and land disposition including sale, lease or otherwise to a person or development corporation or consortia which has already acquired land for the purposes of redevelopment which is consistent with the Community Improvement Plan;

h) public-private partnerships including the establishment of a Municipal Capital Facility for specified cultural, recreational, tourist or certain parking purposes;

i) redevelopment or re-use incentives including grants to persons which offset "start-up" costs associated with new redevelopment or re-use; for example, City Council may choose to forgo the net increase in taxes paid after a reassessment resulting from a redevelopment or reuse of a property; the tax level would be gradually increased over a period of time to the reassessed level;

j) promotion and marketing of the Street to potential new customers, investors, brokers, tenants and other parties with an interest in the renewal of the Street;

k) the City may provide relief from levies, charges and fees associated with redevelopment provided the redevelopment is consistent with the goal and objectives of this Plan and meets the criteria set out in f) above; and

l) other Regeneration Strategies consistent with the goal and objectives of this Plan.

8.0 Regeneration Strategy Reports

Prior to utilizing a Regeneration Strategy permitted by this Amendment, City Council shall consider and provide, when appropriate, for public review, a Regeneration Strategy Report which will contain, among other matters:

- identification and description of the strategy or strategies to be utilized;

- the purpose of the undertaking;

- the role of the municipality and the private sector or other sector in the undertaking;

- the financial implications for the municipality;

- consideration of alternative strategies, if appropriate;

- timing of the undertaking; and

- other appropriate considerations.

Schedule A - Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Project Area

Appendix B

BY-LAW No. 363-1999

To designate certain lands in the Downtown Yonge Street Area

as a Community Improvement Project Area.

WHEREAS subsection 28(2) of the Planning Act provides that the council of a municipality which has an Official Plan containing provisions relating to community improvement may by by-law designate the whole or part of an area covered by the Official Plan as a Community Improvement Project Area and;

WHEREAS the Official Plan of the former City of Toronto contains provisions relating to community improvement covering the lands set out in the maps attached as Schedule "A";

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1. The areas outlined by a heavy line shown on the maps attached as Schedule "A"are designated as a Community Improvement Project Area within the meaning of section 28 of the Planning Act.

ENACTED AND PASSED this 11th day of June, A.D. 1999.

CASE OOTES, NOVINA WONG,

Deputy Mayor City Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

Draft By-laws - Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning

- Bathurst/Strachan Area (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) Recommendation No. (6) of the report (June 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be amended so that only Phase I of the park design be undertaken at this time, for the area of Gore Park east of the proposed Fort York Boulevard, and that the report, as amended, be adopted;

(2) Draft By-laws (1) and (2) attached to the report (June 30, 1999) of the City Solicitor, as amended by Recommendation No. (1), be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bills in Council to give effect thereto, substantially in the form attached to the report.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that notice of the public meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act. The public meeting was held on July 15, 1999, and the following persons addressed the Toronto Community Council:

- Ms. Marilyn Sparrow, Ted Davidson Planning & Development; and

- Mr. Ian Keith, Friends of Fort York.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 30, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary draft by-law amendments to amend the Bathurst/Strachan Part II Plan and associated Zoning By-laws to show an extension of Fort York Boulevard and to rename Bremner Boulevard to Fort York Boulevard in the Official Plan and Zoning By-laws.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The enactment of the Draft By-laws has no financial implications or impact for the City. It requires no funding.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Toronto Community Council hold a public meeting in respect of the Draft By-laws in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act.

Following the public meeting and in the event the Toronto Community Council wishes to approve the extension of the current Bremner Boulevard, it could recommend:

(2) If Toronto Community Council approves the street name change recommended in the Report (June 28, 1999) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, that

(a) Draft By-laws (1) and (2) attached to the report (June 30, 1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bills in Council to give effect thereto, substantially in the form attached to the report; and

(b) the Recommendations contained in the Report (June 28, 1999) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted; OR

(3) If Toronto Community Council does not approve the street name change recommended in the Report (June 28, 1999) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, that

(a) Draft By-laws (3) and (4) attached to the report (June 30, 1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bills in Council to give effect thereto, substantially in the form attached to the report; and

(b) Recommendations 2, 3 and 6 contained in the Report (June 28, 1999) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Toronto Community Council at its meeting of July 15, 1999 will have before it a Final Report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services (June 28 , 1999) recommending that Council resolve to rename the planned roadway from the intersection of Bathurst Street and Nelson Mandela Boulevard to Lake Shore Boulevard West to be "Fort York Boulevard" (Recommendation No. 1). In such a case the Bathurst/Strachan Part II Official Plan and Zoning By-laws text and maps should be amended accordingly. The Final Report also recommends that a planned extension to Fort York Boulevard from Fleet Street to Lake Shore Boulevard West be shown on the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Maps in any event. Draft By-laws (1) and (2) have been provided in the event Recommendation No. 1 is approved. Draft By-laws (3) and (4) have been provided in the event Recommendation No. 1 is not approved.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

This report contains the necessary Draft By-laws, which, if enacted, will give effect to the Planning Report.

Contact Name:

Raymond M. Feig, Solicitor

Telephone: (416) 392-7224

Fax: (416) 397-4420

E-mail: rfeig@toronto.ca

--------

DRAFT BY-LAW (1)

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. , Clause No. ,

as adopted by City of Toronto Council on

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. -1999

To adopt an amendment to Section 19.46 of the Official Plan for the

former City of Toronto respecting the Bathurst/Strachan Area.

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1. The text and maps annexed hereto as Schedule "A" are hereby adopted as an amendment to Section 19.46 of the Official Plan for the Bathurst/Strachan Area.

2. This is Official Plan Amendment No. 147.

SCHEDULE "A"

1. Section 19.46 of the Official Plan, being the Bathurst/Strachan Part II Plan, is amended by:

(a) deleting Maps B, C, D, F, G, H, I, J and K and replacing them with new Maps B, C, D, F, G, H, I, J and K attached hereto;

(b) deleting the words "Bremner Boulevard" where they appear in Sections 2.2, 5.3, 8.2(a), 8.3, 8.4, 9.2.9 and 9.2.14(a) and replacing them with the words "Fort York Boulevard";

(c) deleting the words "Bathurst-Bremner" where they appear in Section 8.11 and replacing them with the words "Bathurst-Nelson Mandela-Fort York";

(d) deleting Section 3.1(b) and replacing it with the following:

"3.1(b) that Fort York Boulevard be developed westward from the intersection of Bathurst Street and Nelson Mandela Boulevard, with wide, landscaped sidewalks such that it establishes the north and west limits of private development and links Bathurst Street with Lake Shore Boulevard West."

(Maps to be attached)

--------

DRAFT BY-LAW (2)

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. , Clause No. ,

as adopted by City of Toronto Council on

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. -1999

To amend By-law Nos. 1995-0466, 1996-0243, 1996-0244, 1996-0245, 1996-0246 and 1996-0247 respecting the renaming of Bremner Boulevard to Fork York Boulevard

and the extension of Fort York Boulevard to Lake Shore Boulevard West.

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1. By-law No. 1995-0466, being "A By-law To amend the General Zoning By-law No. 438-86 with respect to lands generally bounded by Strachan Avenue, Lake Shore Boulevard West, the Frederick G. Gardiner Expressway and Canadian National Railways, also known as the Bathurst/Strachan Area", is amended by deleting the "Bathurst/Strachan Area" Map and Maps 1, 2 and 3, and the 12(1)379 Map, and replacing them with the maps in Appendix A attached hereto.

2. By-law No. 1996-0243, being "A By-law To amend By-law No. 438-86, the General Zoning By-law, as amended, and By-law No. 1995-0466, with respect to the portion of 640 Fleet Street (known as the Molson Lands), being block 1A", is amended by deleting Plans 1, 2, 3 and 4 and replacing them with the maps in Appendix B attached hereto.

3. By-law No. 1996-0244, being "A By-law To amend By-law No. 438-86, the General Zoning By-law, as amended, and By-law No. 1995-0466, with respect to the portion of 640 Fleet Street (known as the Molson Lands), being block 2A", is amended by deleting Plans 1, 2, 3 and 4 and replacing them with the maps in Appendix C attached hereto.

4. By-law No. 1996-0245, being "A By-law To amend By-law No. 438-86, the General Zoning By-law, as amended, and By-law No. 1995-0466, with respect to the portions of 640 Fleet Street (known as the Molson Lands), being blocks 3A and 5 and the proposed parks and streets", is amended by:

(1) deleting Plans 1, 2 and 3 and replacing them with the maps in Appendix D attached hereto; and

(2) deleting the words "Bremner Boulevard" where they appear in Sections 6(10) and 6(18) and replacing them with the words "Fort York Boulevard".

5. By-law No. 1996-0246, being "A By-law To amend By-law No. 438-86, the General Zoning By-law, as amended, and By-law No. 1995-0466, with respect to the portion of 640 Fleet Street (known as the Molson Lands), being block 7", is amended by deleting Plans 1 and 2 and replacing them with the maps in Appendix E attached hereto.

6. By-law No. 1996-0247, being "A By-law To amend By-law No. 438-86, the General Zoning By-law, as amended, with respect to 660 Fleet Street", is amended by deleting Maps 1 and 2 and replacing them with the maps in Appendix F attached hereto.

(Maps to be attached)

--------

DRAFT BY-LAW (3)

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. , Clause No. ,

as adopted by City of Toronto Council on

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. -1999

To adopt an amendment to Section 19.46 of the Official Plan for the

former City of Toronto respecting the Bathurst/Strachan Area.

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1. The text and maps annexed hereto as Schedule "A" are hereby adopted as an amendment to Section 19.46 of the Official Plan for the Bathurst/Strachan Area.

2. This is Official Plan Amendment No. 147.

SCHEDULE "A"

1. Section 19.46 of the Official Plan, being the Bathurst/Strachan Part II Plan, is amended by:

(a) deleting Maps B, C, D, F, G, I, J and K and replacing them with new Maps B, C, D, F, G, I, J and K attached hereto.

(Maps to be attached)

--------

DRAFT BY-LAW (4)

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. , Clause No. ,

as adopted by City of Toronto Council on

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. -1999

To amend By-law No. 1995-0466 respecting the extension of Bremner Boulevard to Lake Shore Boulevard West.

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1. By-law No. 1995-0466, being "A By-law To amend the General Zoning By-law No. 438-86 with respect to lands generally bounded by Strachan Avenue, Lake Shore Boulevard West, the Frederick G. Gardiner Expressway and Canadian National Railways, also known as the Bathurst/Strachan Area", is amended by deleting the "Bathurst/Strachan Area" Map and Map 1, and replacing them with the maps attached hereto.

(Maps to be attached)

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (June 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To recommend the Part II Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments needed to permit the extension of Fort York Boulevard between Fleet Street and Lake Shore Boulevard.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Council resolve that the planned roadway from the intersection of Bathurst Street and Nelson Mandela Boulevard to Lake Shore Boulevard West be named "Fort York Boulevard";

(2) The City Solicitor be requested to prepare an amendment to Section 19.46 (The Bathurst/Strachan Part II Plan) of the Official Plan of the former City of Toronto to amend Maps B-D, F, G, and I-K to show the extension of Fort York Boulevard to Lake Shore Boulevard West, as shown on Map 1, attached to this report;

(3) The City Solicitor be requested to prepare amendments to By-laws 1995-0466, 1996-0243, 1996-0244, 1996-0245, 1996-0246 and 1996-0247 to amend all maps to show the extension of Fort York Boulevard to Lake Shore Boulevard West, as shown on Map 1, attached to this report;

(4) The City Solicitor be requested, upon approval of Recommendation 1 of this report, to prepare an amendment to Section 19.46 (The Bathurst/Strachan Part II Plan) of the Official Plan of the former City of Toronto, as follows:

(a) in Sections 2.2, 5.3, 8.2(a), 8.3, 8.4, 9.2.9, and 9.2.14(a), replace the words "Bremner Boulevard" where they appear, with the words "Fort York Boulevard",

(b) in Section 8.11, replace the words "Bathurst-Bremner" with the words "Bathurst-Nelson Mandela-Fort York",

"that Fort York Boulevard be developed westward from the intersection of Bathurst Street and Nelson Mandela Boulevard, with wide, landscaped sidewalks such that it establishes the north and west limits of private development and links Bathurst Street with Lake Shore Boulevard West";

(d) amend Maps B-D and F-K to replace the words "Bremner Boulevard" where they are found with the words "Fort York Boulevard" west of Bathurst Street and with the words "Nelson Mandela Boulevard" east of Bathurst Street.

(5) The City Solicitor be requested, upon approval of Recommendation 1 of this report, to prepare amendments to By-laws 1995-0466, 1996-0243, 1996-0244, 1996-0245, 1996-0246 and 1996-0247 to replace the words "Bremner Boulevard" where they are found in the text and on the maps, with the words "Fort York Boulevard";

(6) The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be requested to prepare a design for the development of Gore Park, consistent with the extension of Fort York Boulevard and Section 4.4.3 of the Bathurst/Strachan Part II Official Plan; and

(7) The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be asked to report on implementing the name "Fort York Boulevard" for the proposed road between Bathurst Street and Lake Shore Boulevard West.

Council Reference and Background:

Toronto Community Council, at its February 17, 1999 meeting, adopted the recommendations of my February 3, 1999 report to conduct the studies and consultation needed to amend the Bathurst/Strachan Part II Plan and the related Zoning By-laws to extend Fort York Boulevard from Fleet Street to Lake Shore Boulevard.

The extension of Fort York Boulevard from Fleet Street to Lake Shore Boulevard West is a component of the Garrison Common Transportation Plan, prepared by the former Metro Planning Department, dated August 26, 1997 and adopted by the former Metropolitan Council at its September 24 and 25, 1997 meeting.

Comments:

1. Transportation

Fort York Boulevard from Bathurst Street to Fleet Street is already shown in the Bathurst/Strachan Part II Plan. Its extension to Lake Shore Boulevard is part of overall transportation initiatives for the area around Fort York.

The extension was also included in the amended Environmental Assessment prepared by the TTC and now approved for the western extension of the Waterfront LRT from Spadina Avenue and Queens Quay West to the Exhibition Place loop. It will add traffic capacity lost on Lake Shore Boulevard due to the LRT extension crossing Lake Shore Boulevard at Bathurst Street. No further Environmental Assessment is required.

The Garrison Common Transportation Plan, prepared by the former Metro Planning Department, dated August 26, 1997 and adopted by the former Metropolitan Council at its September 24 and 25, 1997 meeting states the following advantages for this extension:

- it would reduce future delays to streetcars on existing and potential routes;

- it would eliminate the need to widen Fleet Street by providing an alternate route to Lake Shore Boulevard for future local traffic; and

- it would provide more direct access and prominence to Fort York.

2. Access and Visibility for Fort York

The extension would provide Fort York with direct road access from Lake Shore Boulevard to its new address on Fort York Boulevard, improve its visibility and encourage more use and knowledge of the Fort and its importance to Toronto's history.

3. Gore Park Design

The extension would bi-sect Gore Park, the triangular shaped and very underused park east of the Princes' Gate which has been used primarily for overflow parking for events at Exhibition Place. The Gibraltar lighthouse occupies the extreme eastern tip of the park. Section 4.4.3 of the Bathurst/Strachan Part II Plan advocates the use of Gore Park as open space for the local community, the elimination of parking as soon as possible and the preparation of a parks plan for Gore Park to be implemented after parking is eliminated. A well planned and developed park on this site would serve the future Bathurst/Strachan community, improve the park and pedestrian linkage between Coronation Park and the open space around Fort York, enhance the Princes' Gate entrance to Exhibition Place and make much better use of this very underused City-owned resource. The extension of Fort York Boulevard through Gore Park increases the urgency of preparing a parks plan.

4. Re-naming Bremner Boulevard to Fort York Boulevard and Nelson Mandela Boulevard

The proposed road called Fort York Boulevard in this report is officially still un-named. A motion to name it "Fort York Boulevard" was deferred by the Council of the former City of Toronto August 21, 1997. (Clause 11, City Services Committee Report No. 10 - Naming of Future Portion of Bremner Boulevard, as Fort York Boulevard). Fort York is the most important historical site in Toronto and naming the street which will finally give it an address will begin to give it the prominence and accessibility that it has lacked for so long.

City Council also passed a motion on October 1 and 2, 1998, that the unopened section of Bremner Boulevard between Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street be named "Nelson Mandela Boulevard". I am recommending the necessary changes to the text and maps in the Part II Official Plan to implement this decision.

5. Public Meeting

A public meeting in the community to consider the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments was held on May 10, 1999 at Niagara Street Public School and was attended by 10 people including Councillor Pantalone. Those attending were supportive of the proposal.

Conclusions:

1. The Official Plan and Zoning By-law should be amended to show the extension of Fort York Boulevard between Fleet Street and Lake Shore Boulevard so that it can be built as soon as possible.

2. The design for Gore Park should proceed.

3. The proposed road between Bathurst Street and Lake Shore Boulevard should be formally named "Fort York Boulevard".

Contact Name:

Ian Cooper

Phone: 392-7572

Fax 391-1330

E-mail icooper@toronto.ca

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (July 14, 1999) from Ms. Marilyn L. Sparrow, Ted Davidson Planning and Development, Mediation, ADR Consultants, which has been submitted to Members of Council under separate cover.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Fort York Blvd Extension

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (July 20, 1999) from the City Clerk forwarding the following communications:

- (July 14, 1999) from Ms. Marilyn L. Sparrow, Ted Davidson Planning and Development, Mediation, ADR Consultants, with respect to the Draft By-laws - Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning for the Bathurst/Strachan Area (Trinity-Niagara); and

- (May 11, 1999) from Mr. Joseph F. Gill, Chair, The Friends of Fort York, with respect to the Draft By-laws - Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning for the Bathurst/Strachan Area (Trinity-Niagara)).

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (July 26, 1999) from Mr. Leo F. Fongo, Aird & Berlis, Barristers and Solicitors on behalf of Concord Adex Developments Corporation (the owner of lands within Railway Lands Central and West) respecting Official Plan Amendment No. 147, Bathurst/Strachan Area and the renaming of Bremner Boulevard through Railway Lands West as Nelson Mandela Boulevard.)

Draft By-laws - Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning

- 1115 and 1121 Bay Street (Downtown)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, amended this Clause, in accordance with the following recommendations embodied in the report dated July 21, 1999, from the City Solicitor:

"It is recommended that:

(1) the Draft By-laws attached to the report dated July 21, 1999, from the City Solicitor, replace the Draft By-laws attached to the report dated July 5, 1999, from the City Solicitor;

(2) authority be given for submission of the Noise Impact Statement, prior to issuance of the building permit for the project; and

(3) Council determine that no further notice is to be given in respect thereof.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that

(1) the Draft By-laws attached to the report (July 5, 1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto substantially in the form of the by-laws attached to the report, which introduction is subject to receipt of:

(a) an Agreement under s. 37 of the Planning Act securing the matters described in the report (June 28, 1999) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor in consultation with the Commissioner;

(b) postponements of all encumbrances on title to ensure the S. 37 Agreement constitutes a first charge against title;

(c) a letter or letters of credit to secure the contribution of $500,000;

(d) submit to and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services the following:

(i) a noise impact statement; and

(ii) at least three weeks before introduction of bills, a reference plan of survey in metric units and integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System, delineating thereon by separate parts the lands under application and any appurtenant rights of way and the remainder of the site, as well as dimensioned plans of the development for the purpose of preparing site-specific exemption by-laws;

(2) the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments be clarified to provide that any funds remaining from the $500,000 contribution by the owner after the provision of $100,000 for parkland in the vicinity of the site and after provision of streetscape improvements and public art, if any, shall be added to the $200,000 affordable housing contribution.

(3) the Recommendations contained in the Report (June 28, 1999) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that notice of the public meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act. The public meeting was held on July 15, 1999, and the following persons addressed the Toronto Community Council:

- Dr. Glenn Scott, Greater Yorkville Residents' Association;

- Ms. Joan Miles, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Dennis Trinastich, McMillan Binch; and

- Mr. Stanley M. Makuch, Cassels Brock & Blackwell.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 5, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary draft Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a mixed-use building containing 154 residential units with retail uses at grade at 1115 and 1121 Bay Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Enacting the Draft By-laws does not require any expenditure by the City.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Toronto Community Council hold a public meeting in respect of the Draft By-laws in accordance with the Planning Act.

Following the public meeting and in the event the Toronto Community Council wishes to approve the Draft By-laws, it could recommend that:

(2) the Draft By-laws attached to the report (July 5, 1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto substantially in the form of the by-laws attached to the report, which introduction is subject to receipt of:

(a) an Agreement under s. 37 of the Planning Act securing the matters described in the report (June 28, 1999) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor in consultation with the Commissioner;

(b) postponements of all encumbrances on title to ensure the S. 37 Agreement constitutes a first charge against title;

(d) submit to and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services the following:

(i) a noise impact statement; and

(3) the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments be clarified to provide that any funds remaining from the $500,000 contribution by the owner after the provision of $100,000 for parkland in the vicinity of the site and after provision of streetscape improvements and public art, if any, shall be added to the $200,000 affordable housing contribution.

(4) the Recommendations contained in the Report (June 28, 1999) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Toronto Community Council will have before it a report (June 28, 1999) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services recommending an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law respecting a proposed development at 1115 and 1121 Bay Street consisting of 154 residential units with retail uses at grade. The planning report recommends an agreement under s. 37 of the Planning Act calling for contributions totalling $500,000 which include payments to the City of at least $300,000:$200,000 for affordable housing and $100,000 for the provision of parkland in the vicinity of the site.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services has indicated that it would be appropriate to clarify that, as part of the $500,000 contribution, the owner may provide public art and off-site streetscape improvements in the vicinity east of the site, up to a limit of $150,000 and $50,000 respectively, but such expenditures are not mandatory. To the extent that the owner chooses not to expend funds towards these matters, any balance in the $150,000 and $50,000 pools should be added to the affordable housing contribution and the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-laws should reflect that obligation. Therefore, a recommendation to that effect has been added to this report.

The S. 37 Agreement is being prepared and the owner is working toward satisfying the other conditions that would have to be fulfilled before introduction of the Bills, should Council approve the Draft By-laws.

The Draft By-laws attached to this report will, if enacted, give effect to the Planning Report.

Contact Name:

Raymond Feig, Solicitor

Planning and Administrative Tribunal Law

Telephone: (416) 392-7224

Fax: (416) 397-4420

E-mail: rfeig@toronto.ca

--------

DRAFT BY-LAW (1)

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. , Clause No. ,

as adopted by Council on

Enacted by Council:

BY-LAW No. -1999

To adopt an amendment to the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto

respecting lands known as 1115 and 1121 Bay Street

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1. The text and map annexed hereto as Schedule "A" are hereby adopted as an amendment to the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto.

2. This is Official Plan Amendment No. 148.

SCHEDULE "A"

1. Section 18 of the Official Plan, for the former City of Toronto is hereby amended by adding the following Section 18.495 and the attached Map 18.495;

"18. Lands known as 1115 and 1121 Bay Street

Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Plan, Council may pass by-laws applicable to the lands delineated by heavy lines on Map 18.495, to permit the erection and use of a mixed-use building, including below-grade parking, provided that:

(1) the maximum residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 11,655 square metres;

(2) the maximum non-residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 280 square metres;

(3) the owner of the lands are required by by-law to:

(a) contribute $500,000 to the City which shall be expended as follows:

(i) a maximum of $150,000 toward the provision and maintenance of works of public art in publicly accessible portions of the lands or on adjacent lands owned by the City;

(ii) a maximum of $50,000 toward off-site streetscape improvements in the vicinity east of the site, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services in consultation with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(iii) $100,000 shall be provided to the City by way of a cash contribution for the provision of parkland in the vicinity of the site;

(iv) at least $200,000 shall be provided to the City by way of a cash contribution for the provision of affordable housing; and

(v) any funds remaining from the $500,000 contribution after expenditures have been made pursuant to Sections 3(a)(i) to (iv) herein, shall be added to the affordable housing contribution set out in Section 3(a)(iv).

(b) provide, maintain and operate the development in accordance with the Noise Impact Statement approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(d) provide any environmental review and perform remediation required by the Medical Officer of Health, including a Dust Control Plan, all in accordance with the Ministry of Labour and Ministry of the Environment and Energy Guidelines; and

(e) provide space within the development for the construction of any transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes, sewer maintenance holes and any other collateral matters which are required in connection with this development.

(4) the owner of the lands enters into one or more agreements satisfactory to the City, pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, to secure the facilities, services and matters required to be provided by subsection (3) and such agreement or agreements have been appropriately registered against the title to the lands.

(Map to be attached)

--------

DRAFT BY-LAW (2)

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. , Clause No. ,

as adopted by Council on

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. -1999

To amend By-law No. 438-86 of the former City of Toronto, as amended,

respecting 1115 and 1121 Bay Street

and to repeal By-law No. 311-78 of the former City of Toronto,

respecting lands known as 1121 Bay Street

WHEREAS pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, the Council of a municipality may in a By-law passed under Section 34 of the Planning Act, authorize increases in the height or density of development beyond those otherwise permitted by the by-law in return for the provision of such facilities, services or matters as are set out in the by-law;

AND WHEREAS Subsection 37(3) of the Planning Act provides that, where an owner of land elects to provide facilities, services or matters in return for an increase in height and density of development, the municipality may require the owner to enter into one or more agreements with the municipality dealing with the facilities, services or matters;

AND WHEREAS the owner of the lands hereinafter referred to has elected to provide the facilities, services and matters as hereinafter set forth;

AND WHEREAS the increases in the density or height permitted hereunder, beyond those otherwise permitted on the aforesaid lands by By-law No. 438-86, as amended, are to be permitted in return for the provision of the facilities, services and matters set out in this By-law and are to be secured by one or more agreements between the owner of such lands and the City of Toronto;

AND WHEREAS Council has required the owner of the aforesaid lands to enter into one or more agreements dealing with certain facilities, services and matters in return for the increases in height and density in connection with the aforesaid lands as permitted in this By-law.

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the City of Toronto enacts as follows:

1. None of the provisions of Sections 4(2), 8(3) Part I 1 and 12(2)259 of By-law No. 436-86, being "A By-law to regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other mattes relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended, shall apply to prevent the erection and use on the lot of a mixed-use building, including below-grade parking, containing not more than 154 dwelling units, provided:

(1) the lot on which the building is located comprises at least those lands delineated by heavy lines on Plan 1 attached to and forming part of this By-law;

(2) no portion of any building located above grade is located otherwise than wholly within the areas delineated by heavy lines on Plan 2 attached to and forming part of this By-law;

(3) the maximum height of the building, as shown on Plan 2, does not exceed 76.8 metres, which height shall be inclusive of:

(a) a mechanical penthouse to a maximum of 10.9 metres, which may include residential amenity space and decorative building elements, and

(b) structural elements referred to in section 4(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of By-law No. 438-86, as amended;

(4) the residential gross floor area does not exceed 11,655 square metres;

(5) the non-residential gross floor area does not exceed 280 square metres;

(6) there are not more than 154 residential dwelling units in the building;

(7) not less than 35 per cent of the Bay Street frontage shall be for street-related retail and services uses;

(8) 107 parking spaces are provided and maintained in a below-grade garage for the exclusive use of the residents of the mixed-use building; and

(9) the owner of the lot, at its expense and in accordance with and subject to the agreement referred to in section 1(9)(f) of this By-law:

(a) contributes $500,000 to the City which shall be expended as follows:

(i) a maximum of $150,000 toward the provision and maintenance of works of public art in publicly accessible portions of the lands or on adjacent lands owned by the City;

(iii) $100,000 shall be provided to the City by way of a cash contribution for the provision of parkland in the vicinity of the site;

(iv) at least $200,000 shall be provided to the City by way of a cash contribution for the provision of affordable housing; and

(v) any funds remaining from the $500,000 contribution after expenditures have been made pursuant to Sections 1(9)(a)(i) to (iv) herein, shall be added to the affordable housing contribution set out in Section 1(9)(a)(iv).

(b) provides maintains and operates the development in accordance with the Noise Impact Statement approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(d) provides any environmental review and performs remediation required by the Medical Officer of Health, including a Dust Control Plan, all in accordance with Ministry of Labour and Ministry of the Environment and Energy Guidelines;

(e) provides space within the development for the construction of any transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes, sewer maintenance holes and any other collateral matters which are required in connection with this development; and

(f) enters into one or more agreements with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act to secure all the facilities, services and matters referred to in subsection 1(9) of this By-law, and such agreement or agreements are appropriately registered against the title to the lands.

2. For the purposes of this By-law each word or expression which is italicized herein shall have the same meaning as each word or expression as defined in the aforesaid By-law No. 438-86, as amended.

3. Section 13 of By-law No. 438-86, as amended, is further amended by deleting the reference "By-law No. 311-78 respecting 1121 Bay Street" and By-law No. 311-78 is hereby repealed

(Plans to be attached)

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (June 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To provide final recommendations for approval of an Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application No. 198012 for 1115 - 1121 Bay Street for a 21-storey mixed-use building containing 154 residential units with retail uses at grade.

Financial Implications:

With the approval of this application, the City will secure financial contributions of $200,000 for the Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing and $100,000 for the East of Bay and Vicinity Reserve Fund pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Official Plan be amended to add a new Section 18 provision substantially as set out below:

"18.__ Lands known as 1115 and 1121 Bay Street

See Map 18.__ at the end of this Section

Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Plan, Council may pass by-laws respecting the lot shown on Map 18.__, and known in the year 1998 as 1115 and 1121 Bay Street, to permit an increase in the density and height of development otherwise permitted, for the erection and use of a mixed-use building, including below-grade parking, provided that:

(a) the maximum residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 11,655 square metres;

(b) the maximum non-residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 280 square metres;

(c) the owner of the lands enters into an Agreement with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, to secure the following facilities, services and matters:

(i) a contribution of $500,000 which shall be expended as follows:

(a) not more than $150,000 shall be expended on public art associated with the development, in accordance with the former City of Toronto's standard public art programme;

(b) not more than $50,000 shall be expended on off-site streetscape improvements in the vicinity east of the site, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services in consultation with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and

(c) of the remaining $300,000, a minimum of $200,000 shall be provided to the City for the provision of affordable housing and $100,000 shall be provided to the City for the provision of parkland in the vicinity of the site;

(ii) provision of space within the development for the construction of any transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes and sewer maintenance holes as required;

(iii) submission, approval and implementation of a Noise Impact Statement;

(iv) provision of improvements to the public boulevard and public sidewalk or payment for the improvements to be provided; and;

(v) if deemed necessary by the Medical Officer of Health, any environmental review and remediation including a Dust Control Plan, all in accordance with Ministry of Labour and Ministry of the Environment and Energy Guidelines;

(2) the Zoning By-law , By-law 438-86, as amended, be amended so as to:

(a) exempt the site from the following sections of By-law 438-86, as amended:

4(2) Height Limit and Mechanical Penthouse provisions

8(3) PART I 1 Maximum Residential and Non-Residential Gross Floor Area

12(2) 259 Street Related Retail and Service Uses

(b) permit the erection and use of a mixed-use building containing street-related retail and service uses and residential uses provided:

(i) the residential gross floor area does not exceed 11,655 square metres;

(ii) the non-residential gross floor area does not exceed 280 square metres;

(iii) the height of the building does not exceed 76.8 metres including a 10.9 metre allowance exclusively for the use as a mechanical penthouse structure which may include amenity space and decorative building elements;

(iv) a minimum of 35 percent of the Bay Street frontage is used for street-related retail and service uses;

(v) a minimum of 107 parking spaces are provided for the residential units in the building;

and provided that the owner enters into an Agreement with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act to secure the following facilities, services and matters:

(i) a contribution of $500,000 which shall be expended as follows:

(a) not more than $150,000 shall be expended on public art associated with the development, in accordance with the former City of Toronto's standard public art programme;

(c) of the remainder of the funds, at a minimum of $300,000, $200,000 shall be shall be provided to the City for the provision of affordable housing and $100,000 shall be provided to the City for the provision of parkland in the vicinity of the site;

(ii) provision of space within the development for the construction of any transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes and sewer maintenance holes required;

(iii) submission, approval and implementation of a Noise Impact Statement;

(iv) provision of improvements to the public boulevard and public sidewalk or payment for the improvements to be provided;

(3) the legal agreement referred to in Recommendation (1) and (2) above contain the owner's acknowledgement that the payments made to the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act are separate and distinct from any other payments made to the City under Section 42 or any other section of the Planning Act or any other applicable legislation;

(4) the owner be advised of the requirement for Site Plan Approval including submission and the approval of a landscape plan for all on and off-site improvements with the following requirements to apply:

(a) construct the access ramp to the underground parking garage with a slope not exceeding 5% within 6 m of the property line and not exceeding 15% along the remaining portions;

(b) provide and maintain a stop sign at the top of the access ramp for vehicles exiting the underground parking garage and a mirror for trucks backing out of the Type G loading space;

(c) provide and maintain a garbage room and a recyclable materials storage room with minimum sizes of 30 m² and 15 m², respectively, for the shared use of the residential and non-residential components, and install and maintain a stationary compactor unit in the garbage room;

(d) provide and maintain access to the garbage and recycling rooms with double or overhead doors of sufficient size to accommodate the transport of container bins;

(e) provide and maintain service connections from the retail component to the garbage and recycling rooms, and the Type G loading space;

(f) provide and maintain 1 Type G loading space on the site, with a generally level surface and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion;

(g) provide and maintain a concrete base pad with a minimum area of 20 m² and a slope not exceeding 2% adjacent to the front of the Type G loading space for the storage of at least 5 compactor containers on collection day;

(h) construct all driveways and passageways providing access to and egress from the Type G loading space with a minimum width of 3.5 m (4 m where enclosed), a minimum vertical clearance of 4.3 m and minimum inside and outside turning radii of 9 m and 16 m;

(i) construct the Type G loading space and all driveways and passageways providing access thereto to the requirements of the Ontario Building Code, including allowance for City of Toronto bulk lift and rear bin vehicle loading with impact factors where they are to be built as supported structures;

(5) the owner submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

(i) a Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System, delineating thereon by separate PARTS the lands under application and any rights-of-way appurtenant thereto and the remainder of the site; and

(ii) dimensioned plans of the development for the purpose of preparing site specific exemption by-laws;

and such plans should be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to the introduction of Bills in Council;

(6) the owner:

(a) apply for revised municipal numbering to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to filing a formal application for a building permit; and

(b) submit a grading and drainage plan, prior to the issuance of a building permit, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(7) the owner be advised:

(a) of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for any work to be carried out within the street allowance;

(b) of the City's requirement for the payment of a service charge associated with the provision of City containerized garbage collection;

(c) that all recyclable materials generated by this project eligible for collection under the City's recycling programs must be set out for collection on the days and at the times scheduled by the City for the collection of recyclables; and

(d) of the comments of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services requiring the submission of a set of fully dimensioned architectural plans to verify the site statistics prior to the final approval of the project.

(8) the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services represent the City at the Ontario Municipal Board in order to pursue the approval of the amendments contained in this report as may be required.

Background:

(a) Applicant and Owners

Application submitted by Stanley M. Makuch, Cassels Brock and Blackwell, 40 King Street West, Suite 2100, Toronto, Ontario M5H 3C2, on behalf of 1268144 Ontario Inc. and 1297906 Ontario Inc., 199 Adesso Drive, Concord, Ontario L4K 3C4

(b) Location and Context

The 1008.5 square metre site is located at the southeast corner of Bay and Charles Streets. The site currently contains two three-storey buildings housing restaurant uses. A public lane (LaScala Lane) borders the east side of the site.

The site is located within a high density corridor which generally extends between Bloor Street and Wellesley Street to the south. Immediately to the south of the site is a 27-storey mixed used building containing residential apartments, a residential hotel, office uses, and street-related retail and service uses. To the east is a 20-storey apartment building. The 51 storey Manulife Centre is north of the site, and an 18 storey mixed use building and 30 storey residential condominium building are located on the west side of Bay Street.

The proposed development is a 21-storey (76.8 metres high including mechanical penthouse) mixed-use building containing 154 residential condominium units with street related retail and service uses at grade and 5 below grade parking levels containing 107 parking spaces. The proposed total gross floor area is 11,935 square metres (11.8 times the area of the lot). The existing buildings on the site will be demolished. The vehicular entrance to the underground garage and servicing for the proposed building will be from the public lane. The residential entrance will be off Bay Street. The massing of the building establishes a 2-storey podium with the building shaft set back 3 metres from Bay Street and 1.5 metres from Charles Street.

(d) Previous Planning Approvals

In December 1984, the Committee of Adjustment granted a consent to sever what is now 1115 Bay Street from the retained parcel to the south (1099 Bay Street). In doing so, the Committee noted that all of the permitted density for the severed and retained parcels had been fully utilized in constructing the mixed use building at 1099 Bay Street, and thus imposed a condition that there be no further residential development on 1115 Bay Street. The zoning on this site was again altered with the adoption of Cityplan in 1993. This current application represents a reconsideration of these previous planning approvals for this site.

(e) Public Comments

A public meeting was held on September 10, 1998 attended by 20 people. In addition, the Department has received letters from the public. Issues of concern that have been raised include the integrity of the Official Plan, the increase in density and height, physical impacts of the building including wind, shadows, pedestrian amenity and noise, the appearance of the building and traffic issues including congestion on Charles Street and adequacy of parking. These issues are addressed in this report.

Comments:

1. Planning Controls

(a) Current Official Plan and Zoning By-law

The Official Plan designation for the site is High Density Mixed Commercial-Residential Area "A", which permits mixed use buildings with a maximum density of 6 times the area of the lot. The Zoning By-law designates the site as CR T6.0 C1.0 R6.0, which permits a maximum total density of 6 times the area of the lot with a maximum commercial density of 1 times the area of the lot. The height limit is 46.0 metres. There is a site-specific Zoning By-law (By-law No. 311-78) applicable to the 1121 Bay Street property relating to an extension to the existing building on the site which would be redundant upon approval of this application and would be repealed as part of this approval.

(b) Requested amendments to the planning controls

(i) Official Plan

Amendments are required to the Official Plan to permit the increase in density from 6.0 to 11.8 times the area of the lot and provide for the entering into of an agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, to secure various facilities, services and matters outlined in this report.

(ii) Zoning By-law

The proposed development does not comply with the Zoning By-law in the following ways: the proposed density of 11.8 times the lot area exceeds the permitted density of 6.0 times the area of the lot; the proposed height of 76.8 metres, including the mechanical penthouse, exceeds the permitted height of 46.0 metres; 36 percent of the Bay Street frontage is retail which is below the required 60 percent.

The applicant has appealed this matter to the Ontario Municipal Board citing the municipality's failure to make a decision within 90 days of receipt of the application. In considering the adoption of the by-laws recommended in this report, staff are seeking Council's authorization to present Council's position on the matter to the OMB, as may be required.

(d) Site Plan Approval

This application does not include Site Plan Approval. Site Plan Approval, which will be applied for separately, is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. A landscape plan showing the details of on and off-site streetscape improvements and outdoor amenity spaces will be required. All off-site streetscape improvements will require a separate application to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for approval of works within the street allowance.

2. Planning Considerations

In determining the appropriateness of the proposal, it is relevant to consider the increase in density and height requested in terms of consistency with the objectives and policies of the Official Plan. Comments received from the public have also been taken into account.

(a) Density and Height

The density of the proposal is almost double the permitted density. The proposed height increase is also substantial.

The site is located in a high density residential area in which tall apartment buildings are characteristic. The site is the final remaining unredeveloped site on the east side of Bay Street between Bloor and Wellesley Street West.

The proposed height of 76.8 metres including the mechanical penthouse is approximately the average height of buildings on Bay Street between Bloor Street and Wellesley, including buildings just to the east of the site but excluding the Manulife Centre which is 164 metres high.

With respect to density, considering that site sizes in the area vary considerably, the proposed density is higher than average but within the range of building densities, which have largely been approved as site specific amendments to the Official Plan and/or Zoning By-law over the last 20 years. Contextually, the proposed building will mirror the general size of 1132 Bay Street which is located on the northwest corner of Charles and Bay Streets and would be about 9 metres shorter than the building immediately abutting the site to the south.

(b) Evaluation of Physical Impact

It is recognized that this area of Bay Street is intensively developed with tall buildings. Buildings in this area vary in design and vintage and often have not been massed in such a way as to mitigate their environmental impact on the public realm. In certain sidewalk locations, shadow and wind impacts are less than desirable. In adding another building to the area, it is important to achieve a neutral if not positive impact which will assist in improving the level of pedestrian amenity.

(i) Shadow

The Official Plan identifies Bay Street in this area as requiring a 3 hour sunlight standard on one sidewalk while the Zoning By-law has no implementing angular plane requirement, largely in recognition of the existing condition of tall apartment buildings. Since this is a rezoning application, it is appropriate to attempt to achieve the 3 hour standard set by the Official Plan, if possible, given existing conditions.

The applicant has submitted a shadow analysis which shows that shadows cast on Bay Street during the morning hours by a building permitted by the existing zoning would be marginally less than the shadows cast by the proposed building. However, both building options generally achieve the 3 hour sunlight standard required by the Official Plan.

(ii) Wind

The applicant submitted a study which concluded that the wind comfort conditions in the vicinity of the site were not significantly affected by the addition of the proposed building. The proposed massing discussed below serves to mitigate wind impact.

(iii) Massing and Pedestrian Amenity

The massing of the building is mitigated by the 2-storey podium which will provide a pedestrian-scale at the base of the building. The building will include a colonnade on Bay Street, which will be aligned with the colonnade of the building to the south, providing up to 3.0 metres additional width for the Bay Street sidewalk. The Charles Street sidewalk will be widened by 1.5 metres. Retail and residential lobby uses will animate the ground floor of the building.

The massing and sidewalk improvements will improve conditions for pedestrians in the area.

(iv) Light, View, Privacy and Amenity

The proposed building complies with the minimum separating distances required by the Zoning By-law with suite arrangements generally oriented to the west, north and east. The project includes two indoor and outdoor amenity spaces and complies with the requirements of the Zoning By-law.

This site is just west of a large area of the Central Core which is deficient in parks to serve the population of workers and residents, as set out on Map 6 of the former City of Toronto Official Plan. In considering the proposed increase in height and density, it is appropriate to consider how the application may serve to mitigate these park deficiencies. This opportunity is discussed in the context of Section 37 Public Benefits below.

(d) Parking, Loading and Traffic Issues

The applicant is proposing 107 parking spaces which slightly exceeds the Zoning By-law requirement for 104 spaces. The parking is to be provided in 5 underground levels accessed via La Scala Lane to the east of the site. Taking into account the unit count, suite sizes, concern with the feasibility of adding an additional underground level of parking, the proximity of public transit and the availability of public parking in the area, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services is satisfied with the proposed parking.

With respect to the loading, one Type G loading space in a lay-by configuration off La Scala Lane is acceptable.

At the request of planning staff and in order to address concerns raised by the public regarding area traffic conditions and impact, the applicant submitted a traffic impact assessment. The analysis concludes that the proposed development can be accommodated by the existing road network and would have a minimal traffic impact on the signalized intersection at Bay and Charles Streets.

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has advised that comments on this assessment will be provided under separate cover.

(e) Preservation of the existing buildings

While the former use of the building on the site as the LaScala Restaurant is of some note for Torontonians, Heritage Toronto has advised that the buildings are not listed or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act.

(f) Housing Intensification

Policies of the former City of Toronto Official Plan and Metroplan support housing intensification in the Central Core. The addition of 154 residential units proposed in this application achieves intensification in accordance with this planning policy.

(g) Section 37 Public Benefits and Agreement

(i) Background

The former City of Toronto Official Plan contains policies which seek to secure public benefits as part of an application which includes a request for an increase in height and density. These benefits include but are not limited to social housing, non-profit community, cultural and institutional facilities, heritage preservation and parks. Ideally, these benefits are provided and secured as part of a proposed development on site (e.g. a social housing development, the dedication of a piece of the site for a park, an on-site daycare). If these public benefits cannot be included on site, a financial contribution in-lieu is provided. The means by which these benefits are commonly secured is through an agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act. The Official Plan sets out a principle that there should be a relationship between the value of the increase in height and density and the cost of providing the public benefit.

The approval of Official Plan and Zoning amendments is a mechanism which can be used to achieve public benefits and other objectives of the Official Plan. It is based in part on the acknowledgement that development which includes an increase in height and density is a substantial private benefit. This kind of development should in some form contribute as well to both local and city-wide planning objectives expressed throughout the Plan (e.g. the shortage of affordable housing, the need to preserve heritage buildings, the need to address park deficient areas and meet other community facility needs).

For example, a recent residential condominium approval at Bay Street and Wellesley Street included a substantial on-site public park dedication and a financial contribution over and above the Section 42 parks levy in part in exchange for the increase in height and the reallocation of density on the site. These public benefits were secured through a Section 37 Agreement.

It should be noted that public benefits secured through Section 37 are in addition to and separate from payments to the City for parkland contribution levies pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act and any development charges which may be applicable. Contributions made pursuant to Section 37 are made specifically as a result of and in exchange for an increase in height and density, in recognition of the need to achieve planning objectives set out in the Official Plan.

(ii) Applicability to Current Application

The applicant and staff have discussed a public benefits package which may be considered fair and reasonable considering the value of the increase in height and density being requested and the cost of providing public benefits further to the Official Plan policy outlined above.

This application includes a proposal from the applicant to incorporate public art into the building and provide some non-site related streetscape improvements in the area. These two proposals are generally consistent with the Official Plan. While public art is typically considered a separate obligation under the Official Plan, this development is smaller than the minimum development size requirement for public art set out in the Plan. Therefore, it is considered appropriate to apply a credit for this public art proposal to the overall public benefits package being offered. Similarly, a credit for non-site related improvements is considered appropriate because of the public benefit being achieved in the local area.

In lieu of other on and off-site public benefits, the applicant has offered a financial contribution. Public benefits being recommended in association with this application are contributions to the City's Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing and the East of Bay and Vicinity Reserve Fund for parks. Contributions to these funds address issues specifically related to Official Plan objectives.

Appreciating that on a small site, these matters may not be achievable as part of this development, a financial contribution toward existing City initiatives for affordable housing and open space development in lieu of providing these public benefits on site is acceptable.

In summary, staff and the applicant have negotiated a public benefits package which is consistent with Official Plan policy as follows: $500,000 contribution of which up to $50,000 may be utilized for non-site related streetscape improvements in the vicinity east of the site and up to $150,000 may be used for public art on the building or site, subject to the approval of the Public Art Commission. Of the remainder of the funds, a minimum of $200,000 is to be provided to the City for deposit in the City's Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing and a minimum of $100,000 is to be provided to the City for deposit in the City's reserve fund for parkland development in the vicinity of this site.

A Section 37 Agreement will be entered into to secure these public benefits.

With respect to the streetscape improvements, the applicant will be required to reconstruct and/or improve the sidewalks adjacent to the site to the upgraded standard found in the Bloor/Yorkville Business Improvement Area as part of the Site Plan Approval. Additional streetscape improvements east of the site either on Charles Street or St. Mary Street up to a maximum of $50,000 will be specified, after further consultation with the applicant and secured in the Section 37 agreement.

As the Section 37 public benefits are in addition to and separate from payments to the City for parkland contribution levies pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act and any development charges which may be applicable, it is recommended that the owner acknowledge this statement in the Section 37 Agreement.

Conclusion

This application has been evaluated on the basis of its consistency with objectives and policies in the Official Plan. This is the last site to be redeveloped on the east side of Bay Street between Bloor and Wellesley Streets, in a high density residential corridor in which tall apartment buildings are characteristic. The proposed development which has been analysed in terms of contextual fit, physical impacts and amenity for the residents, is appropriately massed to mitigate any impacts. In order for the increase in height and density to be acceptable, the proposal must meet all the tests of good planning including the provision of a net community benefit. The approval of the proposed increase in height and density will secure public benefits for the City in fulfilment of Official Plan policies pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, including funds for the provision of affordable housing and parks.

Contact Name

Gregg Lintern

Senior Planner, South District, East Section

Community Planning Division

Telephone: 392-7363

Fax: 392-1330

E-mail: glintern@toronto.ca

--------

Application Data Sheet

Site Plan Approval:	N	Application Number:	198012
Rezoning:	Y	Application Date:	June 30, 1998
O. P. A.:	Y	Date of Revision:	June 4, 1999

Confirmed Municipal Address: 1115 and 1121 Bay Street.

Nearest Intersection: South-east corner of Bay Street and Charles Street.

Project Description: To construct a mixed use building containing 154 residential units with retail at grade.

Applicant:

Stanley Makuch

40 King St. West #2100

869-5977
Agent:

Cassels Brock & Blackwell

40 King St. West #2100

869-5977
Architect:

Page & Steele

95 St. Clair Av. West #200

924-9966

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation: HDMCR 'A' Site Specific Provision: 311-78

Zoning District: CR T6.0 C1.0 R6.0 Historical Status: No

Height Limit (m): 46.0 Site Plan Control: Yes

Project Information

Site Area: 1006.6 m² Height: Storeys: 21 + Mech.

Frontage: Metres: 76.80

Depth:

Indoor Outdoor

Ground Floor: Parking Spaces: 107

Residential GFA: 11655.0 m² Loading Docks: 1 G

Non-Residential GFA: 280.0 m² (number, type)

Total GFA: 11935.0 m²

Dwelling Units Floor Area Breakdown

Tenure: Condo Land Use Above Grade Below Grade

Bachelors: 4 Residential 11655.0 m²

1 Bedroom: 74 Retail 280.0 m²

2 Bedroom: 76

Total Units: 154

Proposed Density

Residential Density: 11.58 Non-Residential Density: 0.28 Total Density: 11.86

Comments

Status: Preliminary Report dated July 6, 1998 adopted by TCC on July 22, 1998. Application revised.

Data valid: June 04, 1999 Section: CP South District Phone: 392-7333

--------

Appendix A

Comments from Civic Officials

1. Works and Emergency Services, dated June 16, 1999.

Recommendations:

1. That the owner be required to:

(a) Provide space within the development for the construction of any transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes and sewer maintenance holes required in connection with the development;

(b) Provide and maintain a minimum of 107 parking spaces on the site to serve the residents of the project;

(c) Construct the access ramp to the underground parking garage with a slope not exceeding 5% within 6 m of the property line and not exceeding 15% along the remaining portions;

(d) Provide and maintain a stop sign at the top of the access ramp for vehicles exiting the underground parking garage and a mirror for trucks backing out of the Type G loading space;

(e) Provide and maintain a garbage room and a recyclable materials storage room with minimum sizes of 30 m² and 15 m², respectively, for the shared use of the residential and non-residential components, and install and maintain a stationary compactor unit in the garbage room;

(f) Provide and maintain access to the garbage and recycling rooms with double or overhead doors of sufficient size to accommodate the transport of container bins;

(g) Provide and maintain service connections from the retail component to the garbage and recycling rooms, and the Type G loading space;

(h) Provide and maintain 1 Type G loading space on the site, with a generally level surface and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion;

(i) Provide and maintain a concrete base pad with a minimum area of 20 m² and a slope not exceeding 2% adjacent to the front of the Type G loading space for the storage of at least 5 compactor containers on collection day;

(j) Construct all driveways and passageways providing access to and egress from the Type G loading space with a minimum width of 3.5 m (4 m where enclosed), a minimum vertical clearance of 4.3 m and minimum inside and outside turning radii of 9 m and 16 m;

(k) Construct the Type G loading space and all driveways and passageways providing access thereto to the requirements of the Ontario Building Code, including allowance for City of Toronto bulk lift and rear bin vehicle loading with impact factors where they are to be built as supported structures;

(l) Apply for revised municipal numbering to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to filing a formal application for a building permit;

(m) Submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

(I) A Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System, delineating thereon by separate PARTS the lands under application and any rights-of-way appurtenant thereto;

(ii) Dimensioned plans of the development for the purpose of preparing site specific exemption by-laws;

and such plans should be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to the introduction of bills in Council;

(n) Submit a grading and drainage plan, prior to the issuance of a building permit, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

2. That the owner be advised:

(a) Of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for any work to be carried out within the street allowance;

(b) Of the City's requirement for the payment of a service charge associated with the provision of City containerized garbage collection; and

(c) That all recyclable materials generated by this project eligible for collection under the City's recycling programs must be set out for collection on the days and at the times scheduled by the City for the collection of recyclables.

Comments:

Location

Southeast corner of Bay Street and Charles Street West.

Proposal

Construction of a mixed-use building comprising 154 residential condominium units and 280 m² of retail space.

The proposal was dealt with in a Departmental report dated March 18, 1999. The above consolidated recommendations supersede the recommendations contained in the previous report, including the recommendation requiring revised plans, which has been satisfied.

Parking and Access

The proposed provision of 107 parking spaces for the residents of the project, located in a five-level underground parking garage, does not satisfy the estimated total parking demand generated by this project for 140 spaces, based in part on the surveyed demand of condominium dwelling units, including 129 spaces for the exclusive use of the residents, 9 residential visitor spaces and 2 spaces for the retail component. As far as can be ascertained, the requirement of the Zoning By-law is for 104 spaces. In a letter dated May 20, 1999, Mr. Stanley M. Makuch of Cassels Brock and Blackwell, the owner's solicitor, submitted certain documentation and requested this Department to reconsider the parking requirement recommended in the previous report. Based on a review of the documentation provided, which includes data on the unit sizes and the opinion of a professional engineer that the construction of 5 underground parking levels is the maximum feasible for this site, the provision of 107 parking spaces for the residents would be acceptable. Given the proximity of public transit and the availability of public parking facilities in the area, the non-provision of parking for residential visitors is acceptable. Also, it is recognized that the provision of 2 parking spaces for the retail component would be impractical. Therefore, the parking supply as proposed is acceptable.

The dimensions and general layout of the parking spaces are satisfactory. Access to the underground parking garage is proposed via a ramp from the 6.1 m wide public lane, known as La Scala Lane, which abuts the site on the east. This is acceptable.

Traffic Impact Assessment

Your staff have provided this Department with Traffic Impact Assessment documentation from Mr. Tim Arnott of BA Group, dated June 1, 1999, regarding the traffic impact associated with this project. Comments on this submission will be provided under separate cover.

Refuse Collection

The City will provide this project, including the non-residential component, with the bulk lift method of refuse and recyclable materials collection in accordance with the Municipal Code, Chapter 309 (Solid Waste) provided that all recyclable materials generated by this project are set out for collection on the days and at the times scheduled by the City for the collection of recyclables. This will require the provision of a Type G loading space and the storage and handling facilities identified in Recommendation Nos. 1(e) to 1(k), above.

The sizes of the garbage storage room and the recycling room as shown on the plans are sufficient. A minimum width of 2.2 m would be required for any doors and service corridors which are to be used for transporting recycling containers for bottles and cans, unless the containers are retrofitted and maintained with special wheels at the owner's expense.

The plans show a proposed Type G loading space located on the east side of the building, configured as a lay-by between the building and the public lane. This is acceptable. To mitigate potential conflicts between trucks travelling across the entrance to the access ramp and exiting vehicles, the plans show that the owner will provide and maintain a stop sign at the top of the ramp for exiting vehicles and a mirror for trucks backing out of the loading space.

It is the policy of City Council to levy a service charge on all new developments, payment of which is a condition for receiving City containerized garbage and recycling collection. The levy is currently $34.50 per month, including taxes, multiplied by the number of garbage containers on site. The levy includes the provision and maintenance of City garbage and recycling containers. Should the owner choose to provide private garbage containers, the levy will still be charged and the containers must meet City specifications and be maintained privately at the expense of the building owner. Further information regarding the above can be obtained by contacting the Solid Waste Management Services Division at 392-1517.

Storm Water Management

The existing water distribution system and sanitary sewer system are adequate to serve this development.

The applicant should submit a plan showing proposed grades and details of the proposed drainage facilities for review and approval.

2. Urban Planning and Development Services (Buildings), dated March 9, 1999.

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description: Build 21 storey retail store and dwelling building ( 154 units ) with 5 levels of basement parking.

Zoning Designation: CR T6.0 C1.0 R6.0 Map: 50H-323

Applicable By-law(s): 438-86, as amended

Plans prepared by: Page & Steele Architects. Plans dated: Jan. 20, 1999.

Gross Floor Area (GFA): 11935 m²

Residential GFA: 11655 m²

Non-Residential GFA: 280 m²

Zoning Review

The list below indicates where the proposal does not comply with the City's Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, unless otherwise referenced.

1. The maximum permitted height is 46.0 metres. The proposed height of the building will be 76.8 metres with the main building 65.9 metres and the mechanical penthouse 10.9 metres. (Section 4(2))

2. The by-law requires a parking space to have minimum unobstructed dimensions of at least 5.9 metres in length by 2.6 metres in width. The proposed 5 of the 104 parking spaces will have dimensions of 4.0 metres by 2.6 metres. (Section 2, definition of "parking space".)

3. The by-law requires that the combined non-residential gross floor area and residential gross floor area be not more than 6.0 times the area of the lot: 6038.4 square metres. The proposed building has 11935.0 square metres of combined non-residential gross floor area and residential gross floor area. (Section 8(3) PART I 1)

4. The by-law requires a building to provide ground floor level "street-related retail and service uses" having a frontage equal to at least 60% of the frontage of the lot abutting a street. The proposed building provides "street-related retail and service uses" equal to 30% of the frontage. (Section 12(2) 259)

5. Two parking spaces for disabled persons have not been provided. ( By-law 329-81)

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

1. The proposal requires Site Plan approval under Section 41 of the Planning Act.

2. The proposal requires conveyance of land for parks purposes, or payment in lieu thereof pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act.

3. This property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. In accordance with Section 34, Part IV of the Act, an owner wishing to demolish a designated building must receive consent in writing from City Council.

4. The issuance of any permit by the Chief Building Official will be conditional upon the proposal's full compliance with all relevant provisions of the Ontario Building Code.

5. The proposal requires the approval of City Works Services regarding ramp approval and curb cuts.

Additional Comments

1. This review is based on the site statistics submitted by the applicant. A set of fully dimensioned architectural plan must be provided to verify the site statistics prior to the final approval of the project.

3. Heritage Toronto, dated September 1, 1998.

Comments on the application noted above were requested in your circulation form dated August 27, 1998.

The properties located at 1115 and 1121 Bay Street are neither included on the City of Toronto's Inventory of Heritage Properties nor designated under the terms of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Staff of Heritage Toronto have no comments on this application.

4. Toronto Catholic District School Board, dated January 29, 1999.

Further to your request for comments, please be advised that bus transportation is provided from the subject are to Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic School (JK-8). Children residing in the above-noted development could be accommodated in permanent facilities at this school and St. Patrick Catholic Secondary School.

5. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, dated November 25, 1998.

I am writing in response to a preliminary report sent to me by a member of your staff regarding the above-noted application. We have reviewed the report and have no objection to the proposed amendment.

Site-specific amendments to allow for increases in height or density are local responsibilities and the municipality should assess the impact of proposed structure on adjacent uses. In addition, issues such as the availability of community services, park land and all environmental concerns should be addressed.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

1115 and 1121 Bay St

Insert Table/Map No. 2

1115 and 1121 Bay St

Insert Table/Map No. 3

1115 and 1121 Bay St

Insert Table/Map No. 4

1115 and 1121 Bay St

Insert Table/Map No. 5

1115 and 1121 Bay St

Insert Table/Map No. 6

1115 and 1121 Bay St

Insert Table/Map No. 7

1115 and 1121 Bay St

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (July 9, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To provide a supplementary comment from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services pertaining to a traffic impact assessment undertaken for this proposal.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Comments:

In my report dated June 28, 1999, I advised that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services would comment under separate cover on the traffic impact assessment prepared by the applicant's traffic consultant.

The Commissioner's comment on this matter is attached for the information of the Community Council.

Contact:

Gregg Lintern

Toronto City Hall

Telephone: (416) 392-7363

Fax: (416) 392-13330

E-mail: glintern@toronto.ca

--------

Appendix A

Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services (July 9, 1999)

The proposal for the above-noted site, located at the southeast corner of Bay Street and Charles Street West, was dealt with in a consolidated Departmental report to you dated June 16, 1999. It was indicated in the report that comments on the traffic implications of this proposal would be provided under separate cover.

The traffic Impact Study dated May 31, 1999 and the supplementary technical documentation dated July 7, 1999, prepared by BA Consulting Group Limited, assesses the impact of traffic generated by the proposed mixed-use development on this site, comprising 154 residential condominium units and 280 sq. m of retail space on the operations of the abutting road network. The consultant has estimated that the proposed development would generate approximately 40 two-way vehicle trips in each of the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The vehicular access for this development is proposed via La Scala Lane which operates one-way northbound between St. Mary Street and Charles Street West, abutting the east limit of this property. The traffic from this development has been added to the existing traffic volumes in the area, which were adjusted to reflect increases in background traffic at a rate of 1% per annum, to simulate future conditions. The consultant assessed the operations of the abutting intersections based on these forecasted traffic volumes and concluded that the traffic generated by this development can be readily accommodated by the existing road network.

I have reviewed the consultant's assessment and while I have some concerns with some of the parameters used in the analysis, I concur with the consultant's conclusion. I note that the traffic signals at the Bay Street/Charles Street West intersection are scheduled to be converted to SCOOT control in September 1999. SCOOT control essentially allows the intersection to be fully responsive to fluctuations in traffic demand by allocating green time between north-south and east-west movements, as required. Therefore, this intersection would, in fact, operate at a better level of service than indicated in the consultant's assessment, which was assumed to operate under fixed signal timing.

Notwithstanding the above, it is recognized that some traffic operations problems do occur in the area from time to time. These problems are unrelated to this specific development. Consequently, Departmental staff would undertake to monitor the traffic conditions in the area to determine what measures could be implemented to address current operation problems.

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, and a copy thereof has been submitted to Council under separate cover:

- (June 28, 1999) from Ms. Barbara Schulze

- (June 30, 1999) from Mr. Keith Major, Manulife Financial

- (July 12, 1999) from Mr. Dennis A. Trinaistich, McMillan Binch, Barristers & Solicitors obo Granflume Investments Limited

- Photo submitted by Joan Miles

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (July 20, 1999) from the City Clerk forwarding submissions from the following with respect to the Draft By-laws - Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning for 1115 and 1121 Bay Street (Downtown):

- (June 28, 1999) from Ms. Barbara Schulze;

- (June 30, 1999) from Mr. Keith Major, Manulife Financial;

- (July 12, 1999) from Mr. Dennis A. Trinaistich, McMillan Binch, Barristers & Solicitors obo Granflume Investments Limited; and

- (undated) photograph submitted by Joan Miles.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 21, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report seeks authorization to amend the Zoning By-law pertaining to the frontage requirement, and to allow for provision of the Noise Impact Statement prior to the issuance of the building permit, as requested by the developer.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications for the City.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Draft By-laws attached to the report (July 21, 1999) of the City Solicitor replace the Draft By-laws attached to the report (July 5, 1999) of the City Solicitor;

(2) authority be given for submission of the Noise Impact Statement prior to issuance of the building permit for the project;and

(3) Council determine that no further notice is to be given in respect thereof.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Council will have before it the recommendations of the Toronto Community Council regarding the application for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law to permit a mixed-use building containing 154 residential units with retail uses at grade at 1115 and 1121 Bay Street.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The developer has indicated that it is not possible for him to provide the Noise Impact Statement prior to introduction of the Bills in Council as originally required, but would prefer to provide it prior to issuance of the building permit for the development. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services is prepared to accept it at that time.

Further, the site-specific by-law has been drafted to require that no less than 35 percent of the Bay Street frontage be for street-related retail and service uses. The developer requests that the minimum be reduced to 30 percent. The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services has requested that the above-noted amendment be made.

Conclusions:

The Draft By-laws attached to this report incorporate the amendments being requested by the developer as outlined herein. Should Council approve the amendments, it would be appropriate to also determine that no further notice be given in respect thereof.

Contact Name:

Raymond Feig, Solicitor, Planning and Administrative Tribunal Law

Telephone: (416)392-7224

Fax: (416) 397-4420

E-mail: rfeig@toronto.ca

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. 11, Clause No. 8,

as adopted by City of Toronto Council on July 27, 28 and 29, 1999

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW NO. -1999

To adopt an amendment to the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto

respecting lands known as 1115 and 1121 Bay Street.

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1. The text and map annexed hereto as Schedule "A" are hereby adopted as an amendment to the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto.

2. This is Official Plan Amendment No. 148.

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 1999.

MayorCity Clerk

SCHEDULE "A"

1. Section 18 of the Official Plan, for the former City of Toronto is hereby amended by adding the following Section 18.495 and the attached Map 18.495;

"18.485 Lands known as 1115 and 1121 Bay Street

(1) the maximum residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 11,655 square metres;

(2) the maximum non-residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 280 square metres;

(3) the owner of the lands are required by by-law to:

(a) contribute $500,000 to the City which shall be expended as follows:

(i) a maximum of $150,000 toward the provision and maintenance of works of public art in publicly accessible portions of the lands or on adjacent lands owned by the City;

(iii) $100,000 shall be provided to the City by way of a cash contribution for the provision of parkland in the vicinity of the site;

(iv) at least $200,000 shall be provided to the City by way of a cash contribution for the provision of affordable housing; and

(b) provide, maintain and operate the development in accordance with the Noise Impact Statement approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(c) provide improvements to the public boulevard and public sidewalk or payment for the improvement to be provided;

(4) the owner of the lands enters into one or more agreements satisfactory to the City, pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, to secure the facilities, services and matters required to be provided by subsection (3) and such agreement or agreements have been appropriately registered against the title to the lands.

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. 11, Clause No. 8,

as adopted by City of Toronto Council on July 27, 28 and 29, 1999

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. -1999

To amend By-law No. 438-86 of the former City of Toronto, as amended,

respecting 1115 and 1121 Bay Street

and to repeal By-law No. 311-78 of the former City of Toronto,

respecting lands known as 1121 Bay Street.

WHEREAS pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, the Council of a municipality may in a By-law passed under Section 34 of the Planning Act, authorize increases in the height or density of development beyond those otherwise permitted by the by-law in return for the provision of such facilities, services or matters as are set out in the by-law;

AND WHEREAS Subsection 37(3) of the Planning Act provides that, where an owner of land elects to provide facilities, services or matters in return for an increase in height and density of development, the municipality may require the owner to enter into one or more agreements with the municipality dealing with the facilities, services or matters;

AND WHEREAS the owner of the lands hereinafter referred to has elected to provide the facilities, services and matters as hereinafter set forth;

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the City of Toronto enacts as follows:

lot of a mixed-use building, including below-grade parking, containing not more than 154 dwelling units, provided:

(1) the lot on which the building is located comprises at least those lands delineated by heavy lines on Plan 1 attached to and forming part of this By-law;

(2) no portion of any building located above grade is located otherwise than wholly within the areas delineated by heavy lines on Plan 2 attached to and forming part of this By-law;

(3) the maximum height of the building, as shown on Plan 2, does not exceed 76.8 metres, which height shall be inclusive of:

(a) a mechanical penthouse to a maximum of 10.9 metres, which may include residential amenity space and decorative building elements, and

(b) structural elements referred to in section 4(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of By-law No. 438-86, as amended;

(4) the residential gross floor area does not exceed 11,655 square metres;

(5) the non-residential gross floor area does not exceed 280 square metres;

(6) there are not more than 154 residential dwelling units in the building;

(7) not less than 30 per cent of the Bay Street frontage shall be for street-related retail and services uses;

(8) 107 parking spaces are provided and maintained in a below-grade garage for the exclusive use of the residents of the mixed-use building; and

(9) the owner of the lot, at its expense and in accordance with and subject to the agreement referred to in section 1(9)(f) of this By-law:

(a) contributes $500,000 to the City which shall be expended as follows:

(i) a maximum of $150,000 toward the provision and maintenance of works of public art in publicly accessible portions of the lands or on adjacent lands owned by the City;

(iii) $100,000 shall be provided to the City by way of a cash contribution for the provision of parkland in the vicinity of the site;

(iv) at least $200,000 shall be provided to the City by way of a cash contribution for the provision of affordable housing; and

(b) provides maintains and operates the development in accordance with the Noise Impact Statement approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(c) provides improvements to the public boulevard and public sidewalk or payment for the improvements to be provided;

(f) enters into one or more agreements with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act to secure all the facilities, services and matters referred to in subsection 1(9) of this By-law, and such agreement or agreements are appropriately registered against the title to the lands.

2. For the purposes of this By-law each word or expression which is italicized herein shall have the same meaning as each word or expression as defined in the aforesaid By-law No. 438-86, as amended.

3. Section 13 of By-law No. 438-86, as amended, is further amended by deleting the reference "By-law No. 311-78 respecting 1121 Bay Street" and By-law No. 311-78 is hereby repealed

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 1999.

MayorCity Clerk)

Repeal of By-law No. 449-76

(61- 67 Yonge Street) - Exclusion of

6- 8 Colborne Street (Downtown)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that By-law No. 449-76 be repealed as it applies to the lands at 6-8 Colborne Street, and that the by-law continue to designate only the lands at 61-67 Yonge Street.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 29, 1999) from the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board:

Purpose:

This report recommends that By-law No. 449-76 be repealed as it applies to the lands at 6-8 Colborne Street as this property is of no architectural or historical significance.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That By-law No. 449-76 be repealed as it applies to the lands at 6-8 Colborne Street, and that the by-law continue to designate only the lands at 61-67 Yonge Street.

Background:

.At its meeting held on September 15, 1976, City Council passed By-law No. 449-76 to designate the property at 61-67 Yonge Street (Traders Bank Building) under the Ontario Heritage Act. At that time the lands included the properties now known as 6-8 Colborne Street. The Reasons for Designation identify only the building at 61-67 Yonge Street as being of architectural significance.

In 1996, consent was granted by the City of Toronto to separately convey the lands at 6-8 Colborne Street.

At its meeting held on June 28, 1999, The Toronto Historical Board adopted a report recommending that the portion of By-law No. 449-76 pertaining to the lands at 6-8 Colborne Street be repealed.

Comments:

In a letter to the City Clerk dated June 14, 1999 the owner of 6-8 Colborne Street requested that the portion of the by-law as it applies to 6-8 Colborne Street be repealed.

Staff of the Toronto Historical Board concurs that the property is of no architectural or historical significance.

The by-law would continue to apply to the lands at 61-67 Yonge Street and the Reasons for Designation would remain unchanged.

Conclusion:

The Toronto Historical Board recommends that City Council repeal By-law No. 449-76 as is applies to the lands at 6-8 Colborne Street.

Contact Name:

Georgia Kuich

Preservation Assistant, Historical Preservation, Toronto Historical Board

205 Yonge Street, Toronto, ON M5B 1N2

Tel: 392-6827, ext. 241

Fax: 392-6834

Angled Driveway Widening -

107 Briar Hill Avenue (North Toronto)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the application for angled driveway widening at 107 Briar Hill Avenue, subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in Chapter 248, Parking Licences, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 30, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on a request for angled driveway widening which does not meet the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 248, Parking Licenses, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. As this is a request for an exemption from the by-law, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit angled driveway widening at 107 Briar Hill Avenue, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code due to insufficient space to meet the required clearance from back of the City sidewalk.

Background:

Councillor Michael Walker, in his communication of June 8, 1999, requested that I report to Toronto Community Council on Mr. Richard Smith's request for angled driveway widening at 107 Briar Hill Avenue.

Comments:

The previous owner of 107 Briar Hill Avenue was licensed for parking adjacent to the mutual driveway fronting the property. The parking area was situated adjacent to the mutual driveway and perpendicular to the sidewalk.

Mr. Richard Smith purchased the property in September 1996, and later submitted an application to transfer the licenced parking space. Mr. Smith's vehicle does not fit in the current parking space, and had requested to change the parking configuration to angled parking.

The request for angled driveway widening was refused due to insufficient space to accommodate the parking space and maintain the required clearances back of the sidewalk.

Driveway widening is currently governed by the criteria set out in Municipal Code Chapter 248, Parking Licences, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. The current criteria of the Code require that:

(a) the parking space be perpendicular to the sidewalk;

(b) the parking area be located no closer than 0.3 metre to the rear edge of the sidewalk or to any portion of the building;

(c) in the case where the parking area cannot be located perpendicular to the sidewalk, the entrance to the angled parking area and the vehicle must be no closer than 2.0 metres to the rear edge of the sidewalk; and

(d) a minimum of 50% of the area on private property fronting the building to be landscaped open space, and a minimum of 15% of the area to be soft landscaping, on the City boulevard, a minimum of 15% of the area must be soft landscaping and all other areas other than the walkway and the parking pad must be soft landscaping.

We have investigated the feasibility of angle parking at this location as per Mr. Smith's proposal and have determined that it does not meet the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 248, Parking Licences, in that there is insufficient setback to accommodate an angled parking area for the large vehicle and still meet the 2.0 metre setback from the sidewalk.

Notwithstanding the above, the proposed angled parking configuration meets the soft landscaping and landscaped open space requirement of the Municipal Code.

Conclusions:

The present configuration of the front yard at 107 Briar Hill Avenue does not provide sufficient clearances for a large vehicle to park angle to the sidewalk, or for parking perpendicular to the sidewalk. Under the circumstances, this request should be denied by Council.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

--------

Mr. Richard Smith appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Driveway Widening -

26 Duncannon Drive (North Toronto)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council permit the application for driveway widening for two vehicles at 26 Duncannon Drive, subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in Chapter 248, Parking Licences, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 30, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on a request for an exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 248, Parking Licences, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit driveway widening parking which does not meet the requirements of Municipal Code, as requested by Councillor Walker. As this is an appeal, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council deny the request for driveway widening at 26 Duncannon Drive and that the boulevard be restored to its original condition;

(2) (a) City Council approve the request for driveway widening for one vehicle, within the limits of the driveway, subject to the removal of the excess paving and paving the parking pad in accordance with City's specifications; and

(b) City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit driveway widening for a second parking space at 26 Duncannon Drive.

Background:

Councillor Michael Walker, in his letter dated May 25, 1999 with the attached communication from Mr. David Altman, owner of 26 Duncannon Drive, Toronto, Ontario M5P 2M1, asked me to report on the feasibility of legalizing driveway widening at 26 Duncannon Drive.

Comments:

Driveway widening is currently governed by the criteria set out in Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. The current criteria of the Code:

(a) limits the number of licenced parking space to one;

(b) prohibits driveway widening if the property has access to an existing parking facility on the lot with access by a driveway that has a width of 2.6 metres or more;

(d) requires that the proposed parking area be paved with semi-permeable material or equivalent permeable paving treatment acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(e) requires that the parking area not exceed a maximum of 2.6 metres in width;

(f) requires that a minimum of 50% of the front yard on private property be maintained as landscape open space;

(g) requires a minimum of 15% of the area on the City boulevard be soft landscaping, and all other areas other than the walkway and the parking area must be maintained as soft landscaping; and.

(h) requires that where there is no sidewalk, the parking area be situated no closer than 2.0 metres to the face of the curb.

The property has a private driveway 2.8 metres wide, which leads to a single open parking space adjacent to the dwelling. The driveway is 12.9 metres long from the street to the building where the driveway is reduced to 2.28 metres wide. The property can accommodate parking for 3 vehicles within the limits of the driveway. The driveway has also been widened to 4.88 metres to permit parking adjacent to the driveway. This area is 2 metres wide and 5.7 metres in length as measured from the curb. There is no record of any approval for this widening of the driveway.

Mr. Altman wants to legalize this existing parking configuration and is therefore requesting parking for two vehicles, one on the limits of the private driveway and a second parking space adjacent to the driveway. If the second parking space is licenced, this would effectively provide parking for 4 vehicles at 26 Duncannon Drive.

This existing parking configuration at this location does not meet the requirements of the Municipal Code, as follows:

(a) the parking area adjacent to the private driveway is paved in asphalt which is not a permeable paving treatment;

(b) the Code limits the licensing to one space at the front; and

(c) the paved area can not accommodate a motor vehicle and maintain the required 2.0 metre setback from the face of the curb.

I note that no application has been submitted to this department, and that there are no licences issued for parking at the front of the property. The property would meet the requirements of the Code for the licensing of the one parking space within the limits of the private driveway. I also note that the property meets all other physical criteria of the Municipal Code (i.e. landscaping requirements and distances from City trees).

Conclusions:

As the Code limits the licensing to one (1) space, the existing space adjacent to the private driveway is not paved in accordance to City specifications, and the existing parking space adjacent is not long enough to accommodate a vehicle, this location is not eligible for driveway widening for a second space. Since the proposal does not meet the current criteria, this request should be denied by Council.

On hearing of deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant driveway widening privileges for 26 Duncannon Drive.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

--------

Mr. David Altman, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Directions Report - Official Plan Amendment and

Rezoning - 460 Yonge Street (Downtown)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that

(1) Application No. 197032 to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for 460 Yonge Street be approved in principle on the basis of a public benefits financial contribution of $200,000, pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, for the Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing and the East of Bay and Vicinity Reserve Fund; and

(2) the City Solicitor be requested to give notice for a public meeting to consider draft by-laws necessary to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit this proposal and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to bring forward appropriate recommendations for approval in accordance with the comments from Civic Officials contained in Appendix A of the report (June 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To seek City Council's direction on an application to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for 460 Yonge Street. In considering this proposal for an increase above the permitted height and density, the applicant has been requested to provide a public benefits contribution which is consistent with the intent of the former City of Toronto Official Plan pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act. The Official Plan seeks to achieve public benefits such as affordable housing, parks and community facilities in exchange for an increase in height and density.

Staff are requesting that City Council consider either approving the application based on the public benefit contribution offered by the applicant or refusing the application based on the unacceptability of the public benefit contribution offered by the applicant.

Financial Implications:

Based on the direction provided by City Council, this application should enable the City to secure a public benefit contribution pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act for the Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing and the East of Bay and Vicinity Reserve Fund. The amount of the contribution is to be determined.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Council provide direction to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services regarding Application No. 197032 to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for 460 Yonge Street with respect to the following options in order to secure a public benefits contribution pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, for the Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing and the East of Bay and Vicinity Reserve Fund:

(a) application No. 197032 be approved in principle on the basis of a public benefits financial contribution of $150,000;

(b) application No. 197032 be refused on the basis that a public benefits financial contribution of $500,000 is an appropriate payment to be made in consideration of the increase of height and density requested in this application; and

(2) in the event that City Council directs that the application be approved in principle on the basis of (1) (a) above, the City Solicitor be requested to give notice for a public meeting to consider draft by-laws necessary to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit this proposal and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to bring forward appropriate recommendations for approval in accordance with the comments from Civic Officials contained in Appendix A of this report.

Background:

(a) Applicant and Owners

Adam Brown of Brown, Dryer, Karol, Barristers and Solicitors, 5075 Yonge Street, Suite 900, North York, Ontario, M2N 6C6 on behalf of Anbor Corporation, 22 College Street, Suite 103, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Y6

(b) Location and Context

The 1760.1 square metre site is located at the southwest corner of Yonge and Grenville Streets. The site currently contains a two-storey commercial building housing 6 retail tenants, a bank and second floor offices.

The site is located in a transitional area between higher buildings in the vicinity of Yonge and College Streets and the predominantly low rise character to the north. There are mid and high-rise apartment and office buildings to the east and west of the site. The neighbourhood is mixed-use with street-related retail and service uses on Yonge Street, some government-related and commercial office buildings, a hotel under reconstruction and residential rental and condominium apartments. The College Park building is to the south of the site.

The proposed development is a 10-storey addition above the existing 2-storey building, including one transfer floor containing amenity, bike parking and storage space and 9 residential floors containing a total of 93 rental dwelling units. The residential addition is setback from the Yonge Street streetline 15.5 metres.

The total proposed density (existing and new) would be 6.94 times the area of the lot. The existing building density is 1.86 times the area of the lot. The proposed total height, measured from Grenville Street average grade and including the mechanical penthouse would be 43.9 metres or 38.5 metres to the top of the main roof. Measured from average grade on Yonge Street, the height is 44.9 metres including mechanical penthouse.

The proposed rental residential units in the building include one, two and two-bedroom+den, ranging in size between 570 square feet and 1480 square feet (53 to 137 square metres).

This final proposal has been modified from the original proposal. The density is the same but the massing of the building has been scaled back to more closely conform to the angular plane requirement. Notwithstanding this adjustment, the floor to ceiling heights have been reduced which has facilitated an increase in the number of floors from 9 to 10 and increase in the unit count from 88 to 93. The total height of the building, which was incorrectly identified in the Preliminary Report based on information provided by the applicant, has decreased approximately 2 metres.

(d) Public Comments

A community meeting held on July 7, 1998 was attended by approximately 15 people. The issues raised at the meeting included impact on the property to the south, access and use of the public lane, parking, physical impact on the residential building northwest of the site, height of the proposal and the functionality of the proposal. These issues are addressed in this report.

Comments:

1. Planning Controls

(a) Current Official Plan and Zoning By-law

The site is designated Low Density Mixed Commercial Residential Area in the Official Plan and is zoned CR T3.0 C2.0 R3.0 with an 18-metre height limit. The maximum density permitted by the Official Plan and Zoning By-law is 3.0 times the area of the lot. The Zoning By-law designates this area of Yonge Street as a priority retail street and stipulates angular plane provisions for buildings over 16 metres in height. The use mix on this portion of Yonge Street encourages residential uses which distinguishes it from the area to the south where more intensive retailing activity is encouraged.

The lands to the north of the site are designated Low Density Mixed Commercial Residential Area while the lands to the south, east and west are designated High Density Mixed Commercial Residential Area "B". The zoning reflects the Official Plan with higher density and height permission to the south, east and west.

(b) Requested Amendments to the Planning Controls

(i) Official Plan

Amendments are required to the Official Plan to permit the increase in density from 3.0 to 6.94 times the area of the lot and provide for the entering into of an agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, to secure various facilities, services and matters outlined in this report.

(ii) Zoning By-law

The proposed development does not comply with the Zoning By-law in the following ways:

- the proposed density of 6.94 times the lot area exceeds the permitted total density of 3.0 times the area of the lot while the proposed residential density of 5.14 exceeds the permitted residential total of 3.0 times the area of the lot;

- the by-law requires a minimum of 63 parking spaces; no on-site parking is proposed;

- the proposed building penetrates the angular plane of 44 degrees measured from an elevation of 16 metres at the street line;

- the permitted height of 18 metres is exceeded; proposed height is 44.9 metres;

- minimum setbacks of 5.5 metres from the south lot line are not provided; proposed are 4.36 and 5.16 metres.

Site Plan Approval will be issued under separate cover upon a final determination of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.

2. Planning Considerations

In determining the appropriateness of the proposal, it is relevant to consider the increase in density and height requested in terms of consistency with the objectives and policies of the Official Plan. The comments of the public have also been taken into account.

(a) Density and Height

The density of the proposal is more than double the permitted density on the lot which is a substantial increase. It is, however, within the range of densities found in residential, office and hotel buildings in the immediate vicinity.

The proposed increase above the permitted height limit is also substantial. Nevertheless the overall height of the proposed building is similar to the height of the recently completed residential building to the northwest of the site on Grenville Street and slightly less than the height of the reconstructed hotel building to the northeast of the site on Yonge Street.

(b) Contextual fit

The site is located between the predominantly low scale retail strip to the north and the higher density built-up area to the south, east and west. This context supports consideration of an increase in height on this site provided the building is transitional in character to mitigate the difference in development intensity and scale between these areas.

The surrounding context has been built out over a number of years during which regulatory controls and planning policy have been modified to achieve more predictable built form with a greater emphasis on the impact of development on the public realm. The most recently constructed building in the area at 10 - 18 Grenville Street which has a density of 9.3 times the area of the lot, was carefully massed to mitigate impact and create a transition to the lower scale of development along Yonge Street. The height of the proposed building and the setback of the building addition from Yonge Street help to achieve similar urban design objectives.

The intensification of this site is generally in keeping with the City's efforts to encourage the revitalization of Yonge Street in the downtown. The site is within the existing Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Project Area and the lands to the north are situated within an extension to the Project Area currently being considered for a Community Improvement Plan amendment. In this area of extension, for example, the City will be pursuing the facade improvement of retail storefronts along Yonge Street.

The maintenance of street related retail and service uses along Yonge Street is consistent with retail policies of the Official Plan. The use of Grenville Street as the residential "address" also contributes to the contextual fit of the building.

(i) Shadow

The angular plane provisions of the Zoning By-law require a five hour window of sun penetration on Yonge Street at this location. The evaluation of an as-of-right scheme which complies with the angular plane requirements compared to the proposed scheme revealed that approximately 4 hours of sunlight can be achieved, primarily due to existing conditions in this area which is comprised of some taller buildings built to the street line. The shadow impact has been addressed satisfactorily given these conditions.

(ii) Wind

A wind study was not requested of the applicant due to the proposed massing of the building which creates a desirable podium condition which mitigates the wind impact on the public realm.

(iii) Massing

The proposed massing responds to the lower scale of development to the north by setting back the building addition above the 2-storey podium 15.5 metres from the street line. This podium will improve the amenity of Yonge Street and of the proposed residential units. With respect to Grenville Street, the proposal includes a small setback above the third floor creating a cornice treatment which responds to other cornice and setback treatment along Grenville Street.

(iv) Light, View, Privacy and Amenity Space

The proposal generally meets the City's standards with respect to light, view and privacy. While the building setback from the south lot line is less than the Zoning By-law requirement, the windows on the south elevation are secondary, with principal windows facing east and west.

The proposal includes the required amount of indoor amenity space, located on the transfer or third floor and double the amount of the required outdoor amenity space, largely located on the podium roof along Yonge Street.

This site borders large areas of the Central Core which are deficient in parks to serve the population of workers and residents as set out on Map 6 of the former City of Toronto's Official Plan. In considering the proposed increase in height and density, it is appropriate to consider how the application may serve to mitigate these park deficiencies. This opportunity is discussed in the context of Section 37 Public Benefits below.

(d) Parking, Loading and Traffic

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has advised that 57 parking spaces for the exclusive use of the residents must be provided, which can be leased off-site within 300 metres of the site and must be surplus to the Zoning By-law requirements of the donor site. This is less than the anticipated demand of 118 spaces. Given the constraints imposed by the retention of the building, the fact that no parking is required for the non-residential components of the building and the proximity to public transit, the off-site parking arrangement is acceptable.

While the Zoning By-law requires 1 Type G loading space as proposed, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services foresees additional demand and requires further documentation outlining how the proposed loading space will accommodate expected demand. Further details are also required with respect to refuse collection.

These issues should be resolved to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to the introduction of any bill in Council.

(e) Housing Intensification and Affordability

Policies of the former City of Toronto Official Plan and Metroplan support housing intensification in the Central Core. The addition of 93 rental units proposed in this application achieves intensification in accordance with this planning policy.

There are also policies in the former City of Toronto Official Plan and Metroplan which encourage the provision of affordable housing. While it is recognized that this proposal is for private market rental housing, it does involve a substantial increase in height and density. The market rents of the proposed units will exceed what is considered affordable rents. As the provision of market rental housing is not in itself a consideration which justifies the increase in height and density which is requested, options have been discussed with the applicant which may assist in achieving the housing objectives pursuant to Official Plan policies. These options are discussed below.

(f) Section 37 Public Benefits and Agreement

(i) Background

The former City of Toronto Official Plan contains policies which seek to secure public benefits as part of an application which includes a request for an increase in height and density. These benefits include but are not limited to social housing, non-profit community, cultural and institutional facilities, heritage preservation and parks. Ideally, these benefits are provided and secured as part of the proposed development on the site (e.g. a social housing development, the dedication of a piece of the site for a park, an on-site daycare). If these public benefits cannot be included on site, a financial contribution in-lieu is provided. The means by which these benefits are commonly secured is through an agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act. The Official Plan sets out a principle that there should be a relationship between the value of the increase in height and density and the cost of providing the public benefit.

The approval of Official Plan and Zoning amendments is a mechanism which can be used to achieve public benefits and other objectives of the Official Plan. It is based in part on the acknowledgement that development which includes an increase in height and density is a substantial private benefit. This kind of development should in some form contribute to both local and city-wide planning objectives expressed throughout the Plan (e.g. the shortage of affordable housing, the need to preserve heritage buildings, the need to address parks deficient areas and meet other community facility needs).

For example, the aforementioned development northwest of the subject site at 10 - 18 Grenville Street, built in 1995, exceeded both the height and density limits on the site. While the proposal was consistent with urban design and built form objectives for the area, it also provided a substantial on-site public benefit in the form of social housing which is consistent with achieving on-site public benefits when height and density increases are considered. The social housing benefit was secured through a legal agreement with the City.

It should be noted that public benefits secured through Section 37 are in addition to and separate from payments to the City for parkland contribution levies pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act and any development charges which may be applicable. Contributions made pursuant to Section 37 are made specifically as a result of and in exchange for an increase in height and density in recognition of the need to achieve planning objectives set out in the Official Plan.

(ii) Application

As discussed above with respect to affordable housing policy, the provision of market rental housing is not in itself a fact which justifies the increase in height and density which are requested. The market rents of the proposed units will exceed what is considered affordable rents. In lieu of on-site public benefits, staff have requested a financial contribution from the applicant which could be considered appropriate considering the value of the increase in height and density being requested and the cost of providing public benefits.

Public benefits being considered in association with this application are financial contributions to the City's Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing and the East of Bay and Vicinity Reserve Fund for parks. Contributions to these funds would be a net benefit to the community, consistent with the intent of the Official Plan.

The applicant has argued that the provision of rental housing is, in itself, a public benefit. In addition, the applicant has offered two alternatives with attributable value:

(a) an offer to enter into an agreement with the City that 10 of the proposed 93 units will be rented for $200 less than the market rent for a period of 10 years; or

(b) a financial contribution of $150,000.

It is staff's view that the provision of market rental housing is not in itself a fact which justifies the increase in height and density which are requested. Furthermore, the applicant and staff have been unable to agree on the value relationship between the increase in height and density and the cost of providing a more reasonable and fair measure of public benefits. After consulting with the Director of Real Estate, staff have concluded that the values of the two alternatives offered by the applicant are not fair and reasonable, taking into account the existing Official Plan Section 37 provisions and other development approvals in the downtown.

Staff have considered the rent reduction alternative and are of the view that the rent reduction being offered on the 10 units would still not achieve affordable rent levels. As an alternative, the applicant has offered $150,000. Staff have requested a contribution of $500,000, which would be more representative of the value of the increase and the cost of providing some reasonable and fair measure of public benefits.

As there is a considerable gap between the positions of staff and the applicant, it is appropriate to present the option of accepting the applicant's offer to Council or refusing the application based on the inadequate nature of the Section 37 contribution.

Conclusion

This application has been evaluated on the basis of its consistency with the objectives and policies of the Official Plan. While the built form is acceptable and impacts of the proposed development have been mitigated, the increase in the height and density of the proposed development is substantial. In order for the increase in height and density to be acceptable, it must meet all the tests of good planning including the provision of a net community benefit. It is appropriate that Council only approve this application in concert with the provision of certain public benefits, pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act. The value of the increase in height and density and the cost of providing public benefits must have some fair and reasonable relationship.

The applicant has offered $150,000 in lieu of on-site public benefits. After consulting with the Director of Real Estate, planning staff have indicated that a value of $500,000 is more in keeping with the value of the increase in height and density and the cost of providing public benefits.

City Council is being asked to provide direction to staff on how to proceed with this application. Council can accept the applicant's offer or refuse the application on the basis that the public benefits package is insufficient.

Contact

Gregg Lintern

Senior Planner, South District, East Section

Community Planning Division

Telephone: (416) 392-7363; Fax: (416) 392-1330; E-mail: glintern@toronto.ca

--------

Application Data Sheet

Site Plan Approval:	Y	Application Number:	197032
Rezoning:	Y	Application Date:	December 31, 1997
O. P. A.:	Y	Date of Revision:	February 5, 1999

Confirmed Municipal Address:460 Yonge Street.

Nearest Intersection:	West side of Yonge Street; north of College Street.

Project Description:	To construct a residential addition to an existing commercial building.

Applicant:

Adam J. Brown

5075 Yonge St #900

222-0344

Agent:

Adam J. Brown

5075 Yonge St #900

222-0344

Architect:

Climans Green Liang

160 Pears Ave., #212

925-8100

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation:	LDMCRA	Site Specific Provision:	No
Zoning District:	CR T3.0 C2.0 R3.0	Historical Status:	No
Height Limit (m):	18.0	Site Plan Control:	Yes

Project Information

Site Area:	1760.1 m²	Height:	Storeys:		12
Frontage:	45.9 m		Metres:		44.9
Depth:	38.4 m
			Indoor		Outdoor
Ground Floor:		Parking Spaces:
Residential GFA:	9050.7 m²	Loading Docks:	1	G
Non-Residential GFA:	3164.6 m²	(number, type)
Total GFA:	12215.3 m²

Dwelling Units		Floor Area Breakdown
Tenure:	Rental	Land Use	Above Grade	Below Grade
1 Bedroom:	50	Residential	9050.7 m²
2 Bedroom:	25	Retail	3164.6 m²
3 Bedroom:	18
Total Units:	93

Proposed Density
Residential Density: 5.14	Non-Residential Density: 1.80	Total Density: 6.94

Comments

Status:

Preliminary Report dated April 20, 1998 adopted by TCC on May 7, 1998. Application revised February 05, 1999

Data valid:

February 05, 1999

Section:

CP South District

Phone:

392-7333

--------

Appendix A

Comments from Civic Officials

1.Works and Emergency Services, dated June 24, 1999

Comments:

The proposal for the above-noted site, located at the south-west corner of Yonge Street and Grenville Street, was dealt with in a Departmental report to you dated July 22, 1998.

The project has been revised to, among other things:

- Increase the number of residential units from 88 units to 93 units;

- Indicate on the Site Plan Statistics that a 53.2 m2 garbage room and a 10 m2 recycling room will be provided;

- Provide double doors measuring 2.1 m in width, leading to the loading facility from each storage room;

- Provide a Type G loading space;

- Provide a concrete base pad with a slope not exceeding 2 per cent adjacent to the front of the Type G loading space for the storage of at least 3 compactor containers on collection day.

Parking

As a result of the increase in the total number of residential units, the estimated parking demand generated by this project has increased to 118 spaces, including 57 spaces for the exclusive use of the residents and 61 spaces for the shared use of the residential visitors and the non-residential components of the project. As far as can be ascertained the Zoning By-law requires the provision of 57 parking spaces for the residential component, whereas, no spaces are required for the non-residential component of the project.

As set out in the previous Departmental report, given the constraints imposed by the retention of the existing building, that the Zoning By-law does not require parking for the existing non-residential components of the project and recognizing the proximity of the site to public transit, the non-provision of parking for the non-residential components is acceptable. However, the 57 parking spaces required for the residents, must be provided, which can be leased off-site, within 300 m of the site and be surplus to the Zoning By-law requirements of the donor site. The location, layout, access arrangements and lease arrangements for the off-site parking spaces have not yet been provided and shown on a plan as previously requested.

The plans have been revised to show the provision of 1 Type G loading space, which is less than the estimated loading demand generated by the development for 1 Type G, 1 Type B and 1 Type C loading spaces, based on the shared use of the loading spaces by the residential and non-residential components of the project, whereas, as far as can be ascertained, the Zoning By-law requires the provision of 1 Type G loading space to serve the residential component of the project. This Department has not yet received documentation outlining how the expected loading demands generated by this development will be accommodated utilizing the proposed loading area, as set out in the July 22, 1998 Departmental report.

Refuse Collection

A garbage storage room (undimensioned) and a separate recyclable materials storage room of 10 m2, designed with double doors leading to the loading facility have been shown on the plans and are acceptable. However, the plans should be revised to indicate the size of the garbage storage room.

The facilities required to facilitate City refuse collection, including a Type G loading space designed to permit trucks to enter and exit the site in a forward motion, as set out in the July 22, 1998 Departmental report has been provided and are acceptable. It is noted that trucks accessing the Type G loading space will be required to drive over a portion of the grating over the transformer vault, which is located at the rear of the loading space. This grating should be constructed to the requirements of the Ontario Building Code, to withstand the loads imposed by City bulk-lift loading collection vehicles and the owner must accept all liability for any damage that may be caused, through the regular use of the area by these vehicles.

As a result of the foregoing, Recommendation Nos. 1(e), 1(l) and 1(p) of the July 22, 1998 Departmental report should be revised as follows:

1(e) Provide and maintain a minimum of 57 parking spaces for the residents, which may be provided off-site, within 300 m of the subject site;

1(l) Construct the Type G loading space and all driveways and passageways providing access thereto to the requirements of the Ontario Building Code, including allowance for City of Toronto bulk-lift vehicle loading with impact factors where they are to be built as supported structures;

1(p) Submit revised drawings with respect to Recommendation Nos. 1(e), 1(f), 1(g) and 1(h) above, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

and Recommendation No. 1(q) should be added as follows:

1(q) Construct the grating over the Toronto Hydro Transformer Vault, to applicable City standards to withstand truck traffic and accept all liability for any damages that may be caused to the grating through the regular use of the area by City garbage trucks, if applicable.

2. Works and Emergency Services, dated July 22, 1998.

Recommendations:

1. That the owner be required to:

(a) Provide space within the development for the construction of any transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes and sewer maintenance holes required in connection with the development;

(b) Submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the introduction of a bill in Council:

(i) a Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan addressing strategies for material recovery and waste reduction within the development; and

(ii) a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with City Council's requirements;

(c) Have a qualified Architect/Acoustical Consultant certify, in writing, to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services that the development has been designed and constructed in accordance with the Noise Impact Statement approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(d) Provide, maintain and operate the material recovery and waste reduction and noise impact measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the respective plans approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(e) Provide and maintain a minimum of 52 parking spaces for the residents, which may be provided off-site, within 300 m of the subject site;

(f) Submit plans showing the location and configuration of the off-site parking spaces required in Recommendation No. 1(e) above, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(g) Submit documentation identifying the loading demands generated by this project and how they will be accommodated, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(h) Provide and maintain a garbage room at least 20 square metres in size in the residential component of the project and install and maintain a stationary compactor unit, to City specifications, in the garbage room;

(i) Provide and maintain a room at least 10 square metres in size to drop-off and store recyclable material, separate from the garbage room;

(j) Provide and maintain a double door or an overhead door, totalling at least 2.1 m in width, leading to the loading facility from each storage room;

(k) Provide and maintain 1 Type G loading space on the site, with a generally level surface and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion;

(l) Construct all driveways and passageways providing access to and egress from the Type G loading space with a minimum width of 3.5 m (4 m where enclosed), a minimum vertical clearance of 4.3 m and minimum inside and outside turning radii of 9 m and 16 m;

(m) Provide and maintain a level service connection between the garbage room and recycling room and the Type G loading space for the transporting of container bins;

(n) Provide and maintain a concrete base pad with a slope not exceeding 2% adjacent to the front of the Type G loading space for the storage of at least 3 compactor containers on collection day;

(o) Submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, final approved drawings of the development with sufficient horizontal and vertical dimensions of the exterior walls of the building envelope plans, and such plans should be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to the introduction of bills in Council;

(p) Submit revised drawings with respect to Recommendation Nos. 1(e), (f), (h), (i), (j), (k) and (n) above, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

2. That the owner be advised:

(a) Of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for any work to be carried out within the street allowance;

(b) Of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for the proposed canopy within the Grenville Street road allowance; and

(c) Of the City's requirement for payment of a service charge associated with the provision of the City containerized garbage collection.

Comments:

Location

South-west corner of Yonge Street and Grenville Street.

Proposal

Construction of a 9 storey, 88-unit residential addition to an existing 2-storey commercial building which comprises 172.58 m² of retail space, 426.55 m² of bank space, 800.3 m² of restaurant space and 1,897.58 m² of office space. The commercial uses would be retained and the residential units would be rental housing.

Parking and Access

No parking is currently provided on-site and none are proposed in conjunction with this project. The estimated parking demand generated by this project, is 109 spaces, including 52 spaces for the residents and 57 spaces for the shared use of the residential visitors and the non-residential components of the project. The preliminary Zoning By-law Review Notice indicates that 57 spaces are required under the provisions of the Zoning By-law for the residential component, whereas, none are required for the non-residential components of the project. While the parking demand generated by the existing commercial uses would appear to be accommodated in the public parking facilities in the area, it is not clear how the parking demand generated by the residents of this project will be accommodated.

Given the constraints imposed by the retention of the existing building, that the Zoning By-law does not require parking for the existing non-residential components of the project, and recognizing the proximity of the site to public transit, the non-provision of parking for the non-residential components is acceptable. Also, the provision of residential visitor parking off-site would not be practicable, although a variance to the visitor parking requirements of the Zoning By-law would be required. However, the 52 parking spaces required for the residents must be provided, which can be leased off-site, within 300 m of the site and be surplus to the Zoning By-law requirements of the donor site. The location, layout, access arrangements and lease arrangements for the off-site parking spaces should be provided and shown on a plan.

Lane Widening

The abutting 5.49 m wide north-south lane is a substandard commercial public lane, which ultimately should be widened to a minimum of 6 m in accordance with City Council standards. Given that the existing building to be retained extends to the east limit of the lane, it is not practicable to require a lane widening in this instance.

The plans show the provision of one Type B loading space at the west limit of the site, with direct access from the abutting public lane. This is less than the estimated loading demand generated by the development for one Type G, one Type B and one Type C loading spaces, based on the shared use of the loading spaces by the residential and non-residential components of the project, whereas, as far as can be ascertained, the Zoning By-law requires the provision of 1 Type G loading space to serve the residential component of the project. Negative impacts on the abutting street could result if the loading demand generated by this project is not satisfied on site. In this regard, the owner must submit documentation outlining how the expected loading demands generated by this development will be accommodated utilizing the proposed loading area. As discussed below, a Type G loading space is required to qualify for City bulk lift refuse collection.

Refuse Collection

Residential developments of this size are typically serviced by the bulk lift method of refuse handling and disposal, in accordance with the Municipal Code, Chapter 309, Solid Waste. This requires, among other things, the provision of a Type G loading space and sufficient manoeuvring area for trucks to safely enter and exit the site in a forward motion, and the provision of the following facilities:

- a garbage room with a minimum size of 20 m², equipped with a stationary compactor;

- a recyclable materials storage room with a minimum size of 10 m²;

- a service corridor linking the retail component with the garbage and recyclable storage rooms;

- a Type G loading space located on site and designed such that garbage trucks using the loading space are able to enter and exit the site in a forward motion; and

- a concrete pad adjacent to the front of the Type G loading space for the storage of 3 container bins on collection day.

The existing Type B loading space must be enlarged to the dimensions of a Type G loading space. This will require the existing building to be retrofitted. The plans show the provision of a 26.08 m² garbage storage room and a separate 8.35 m² recyclable materials storage room. The size of the recyclable materials storage room is insufficient to accommodate the amount of recyclable materials generated by the residential component of this project. The compactor required in the garbage storage room must be compatible with the charger door on the City's bulk lift containers. The dimensions of the charger door are 91.44 cm horizontally and 72.39 cm vertically and the compaction level of the unit should not exceed 800 p.s.i.

The refuse generated by the non-residential components of this project will exceed the volume limits set out in the Municipal Code, Chapter 309, Solid Waste, and therefore, must continue to be collected by a private refuse collection firm. Furthermore, it is necessary for the owner to submit a material recovery and waste reduction plan to this Department for review and approval, the details of which are set out below.

Material Recovery and Waste Reduction

The owner is required to submit a Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan with respect to the commercial component of this development which will include:

(a) A description of the waste composition which is generated by the commercial component of this development and the quantity of each category of waste material;

(b) A description of the policies, programmes, processes and equipment which are in place to carry out material recovery and waste reduction;

(d) Separate accommodation for the recovery, safe storage and disposal of hazardous waste, if any.

The owner is advised that staff of the Operations and Sanitation Division (telephone no. 392-1040) will assist in the format and content requirements in the preparation of the plan.

Municipal Services

The existing water distribution and sanitary sewer systems are adequate to serve this development.

Encroachments

The existing encroachments on Grenville Street are covered by an agreement registered on April 2, 1990, as Instrument No. CA83623. The project includes the installation of a canopy which will encroach onto the Grenville Street road allowance and, as a result, will require the submission of a separate application to your Department.

Work within the Road Allowances

Approval for any work to be carried out within the street allowances must be received by this Department.

3. Urban Planning and Development Services (Buildings), dated March 10, 1999.

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description: Construct 10 storey addition

Zoning Designation: CR T3.0 C2.0 R3.0 Map: 50H 323

Applicable By-law(s): 438-86, as amended

Plans prepared by: Climans Green Liang Architects Inc. Plans dated: February 5, 1999

Zoning Review

The list below indicates where the proposal does not comply with the City's Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, unless otherwise referenced.

1. The by-law requires a minimum of 63 parking spaces be provided. The number of proposed parking spaces is 0. (Section 4(5)(b))

2. Bicycle parking spaces have not been provided in the following proportion: 56 bicycle parking spaces for the occupants of the building and 14 bicycle parking spaces for the visitors of the building. (Section 4(13)(c))

3. The by-law limits the maximum combined non-residential gross floor area and residential gross floor area to not more than 3.0 times the area of the lot: (5,280.27) square metres. The proposed building has 12,215.27 square metres of combined non-residential gross floor area and residential gross floor area. (Section 8(3) PART I 1)

4. The by-law limits the maximum residential gross floor area to not more than 3.0 times the area of the lot: (5,280.27) square metres. The proposed residential gross floor area of the building is 9,050.71 square metres. (Section 8(3) PART I 3(a))

5. The by-law requires the building to be within the 44 degree angular plane projected over the lot from an elevation of 16 metres over the street line. The proposed building penetrates the angular plane. (Section 12(2) 260(ii))

6. The maximum permitted height of 18.0 metres is being exceeded. Proposed is 44.88 metres. (Section 4(2)(a))

7. The minimum required 5.5 metre setback from the south lot line has not been provided. Proposed is 4.36 metres and 5.16 metres.

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

1. The proposal requires Site Plan approval under Section 41 of the Planning Act.

2. The proposal requires conveyance of land for parks purposes, or payment in lieu thereof pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act.

3. The proposal DOES NOT require City Council's approval pursuant to the provisions of the Rental Housing Protection Act, 1989.

4. The proposal DOES NOT require the approval of Heritage Toronto under the Ontario Heritage Act.

5. The issuance of any permit by the Chief Building Official will be conditional upon the proposal's full compliance with all relevant provisions of the Ontario Building Code.

4. Toronto Transit Commission, dated March 17, 1998.

It is noted that the Yonge subway line is adjacent to the subject site. It will, therefore, be necessary for the developer to obtain approval of site and foundation plans (5 sets) from the TTC (Attention: Domenic Garisto - Property management Department) prior to receiving a building permit. The following supporting documentation is also requested:

- shoring drawings

- plot plan/sections/elevations showing relation to the subway structure

- structural calculations showing loads

- geotechnical report

- excavating, de-watering and landscaping plans

- monitoring program to measure any subway structure movement

Subsequent approval of the foregoing development is subject to any conditions that may be specified to the applicant by Mr. Garisto.

Please inform the applicant that the Commission will not accept responsibility for the effects of transit operations on the building or its occupants. Since noise and vibration may be transmitted from street traffic and from our transit operations, the developer should apply attenuation measures so that the levels of noise and vibration in the proposed development will be at the lowest level technically feasible. The developer should inform prospective purchasers and lessees, through a clause in the purchase or rental agreements, of the potential for noise and vibration intrusions and the fact that the TTC accepts no responsibility for any such affects.

5. Toronto Catholic School Board, dated April 28, 1998.

Please be advised that students emanating from the above-noted development could be accommodated in permanent facilities at Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic School (JK-8) and the proposed Marshall McLuhan Catholic Secondary School.

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (July 15, 1999) from Mr. Dave Irwin, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

--------

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. Dave Irwin, Toronto, Ontario; and

- Mr. Adam Brown, Brown Dryer Karol.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

460 Yonge St

Insert Table/Map No. 2

460 Yonge St

Insert Table/Map No. 3

460 Yonge St

Insert Table/Map No. 4

460 Yonge St

Insert Table/Map No. 5

460 Yonge St

Insert Table/Map No. 6

460 Yonge St

Insert Table/Map No. 7

460 Yonge St

Insert Table/Map No. 8

460 Yonge St

Insert Table/Map No. 9

460 Yonge St

Insert Table/Map No. 10

460 Yonge St

Insert Table/Map No. 11

460 Yonge St

(Councillor Shiner, at the meeting of Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause in that an associated Solicitor in the firm representing the applicant is representing him in another matter.)

Settlement Report - 1560 Yonge Street,

10 Delisle Avenue and Parts of

22 and 26 Delisle Avenue (Midtown)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 30, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To recommend that the City Solicitor be authorized to settle, at the Ontario Municipal Board, appeals made with respect to Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval Application No. 197004 for 1560 Yonge Street, 10 DeLisle and parts of 22 and 26 DeLisle Avenue, substantially in accordance with this report.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended:

(1) That the City Solicitor seek approval of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval (Application No. 197004) for 1560 Yonge Street, 10 DeLisle and parts of 22 and 26 DeLisle Avenue, at the Ontario Municipal Board, substantially in accordance with Recommendations 2, 3 and 4 of this report.

(2) That the former City of Toronto's Official Plan be amended for the lands known in the year 1999 as 1560 Yonge Street and 10 DeLisle Avenue and parts of 22 and 26 DeLisle Avenue, substantially as set out below:

See Map 18.___ at the end of this Section.

Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Plan, Council may pass by-laws applicable to the lands indicated on Map __, to permit the erection and use of a mixed use building, provided that:

(a) the total gross floor area does not exceed 31,250 square metres, of which the maximum non-residential gross floor area does not exceed 6,920 square metres and the maximum residential gross floor area does not exceed 24,330 square metres;

(b) not less than 25 percent of the units erected or used on the site shall be "low end of market";

(i) to provide funds in the amount One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000), in the form of a certified cheque or letter of credit, prior to the issuance of a building permit, to be used by the City to retain a qualified transportation consultant to undertake a neighbourhood traffic study of the Yonge Street/St. Clair Avenue area, and for the installation of any mitigating measures recommended by the consultant and approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the local Councillors; and

(ii) to provide a minimum of 50 interim public parking spaces at all times during construction, on site or within 300 metres of the site.

(d) the owner enters into an agreement to secure the facilities, services and matters required under subsection (c), and the agreement is registered on title to the lands shown on Map __.

For the purpose of this Official Plan amendment "low end of market" means dwelling units which are subject to the following size restrictions:

(i) the maximum residential gross floor area for a bachelor or one-bedroom unit shall be 70 square metres;

(ii) the maximum residential gross floor area for a two-bedroom unit shall be 90 square metres; and

(iii) the maximum residential gross floor area for a three-bedroom unit shall be 98 square metres.

3. That the former City of Toronto's Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, be amended as it affects the lands known as 1560 Yonge Street and 10 DeLisle Avenue and parts of 22 and 26 DeLisle Avenue, shown on Map 1, so as to:

(a) exempt the site from Sections 4(2)(a), 4(4)(b), 4(10)(a), 6(1)(a), 6(3) Part I1, 6(3) Part II 2 (iii), 6(3) Part II 3 G, 6(3) Part II 6, 6(3) Part II 4, 6(3) Part II 5 and 6(3) Part III 1(a);

(b) permit the maintenance and use of the existing building as shown on Map 1 as "Existing Building" and the erection and use of an addition of a residential tower and below grade commercial garage provided that:

(i) the lot on which such building is to be erected or used comprises at least the lands shown delineated by heavy lines on Map 1 attached to this report;

(ii) no part of the building above grade extends beyond the area shown on Map 1 attached to this report;

(iii) the height of the building does not exceed the heights shown on Map 2 attached to this report;

(iv) the total gross floor area does not exceed 31,250 square metres, of which the maximum non-residential gross floor area does not exceed 6,920 square metres and the maximum residential gross floor area does not exceed 24,330 square metres;

(v) the building contains not more than 240 dwelling units;

(vi) a minimum of 3 dwelling units are located on the ground floor and are directly accessible form Heath Street West;

(vii) a minimum of 1 parking space for every 101 square metres of residential gross floor area are provided to serve the residential component of the project;

(viii) the commercial parking garage component of the development contains a maximum of 230 parking spaces and is operated by the Toronto Parking Authority;

(ix) not less than one Type G loading space and two Type B loading spaces are provided on the lot; and

(x) not less than 25 percent of the units erected or used on the site shall be "low end of market"

(c) Despite the provision of Section 4(2)a and Section 6(3) Part II of the aforesaid By-law No. 438-86, as amended, the density of residential uses and height would be increased subject to compliance with all the other requirements of By-law No. 438-86, as amended by this By-law, and pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, in return for the provision by the owner of the lot of the following facilities, services or matters to the City, namely funds in the amount One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000), in the form of a certified cheque or letter of credit, prior to the issuance of a building permit, to be used by the City to retain a qualified transportation consultant to undertake a neighbourhood traffic study of the Yonge Street/St. Clair Avenue area, and for the installation of any mitigating measures recommended by the consultant and approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the local Councillors.

Provided that not less than 50 interim commercial parking spaces are provided on the lot or within 300 metres of the lot during the construction of the development operated by the Toronto Parking Authority and that this objective be secured to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Solicitor.

For the purpose of this Zoning By-law amendment "low end of market" means dwelling units which are subject to the following size restrictions:

(i) the maximum residential gross floor area for a bachelor or one-bedroom unit shall be 70 square metres;

(ii) the maximum residential gross floor area for a two-bedroom unit shall be 90 square metres; and

(iii) the maximum residential gross floor area for a three-bedroom unit shall be 98 square metres.

(4) That the plans and drawings submitted with this application, namely Plan Nos.

A101 Site Plan

A201 Entry Level (P1)

A202 Underground Level (P2)

A203 Underground Level (P3)

A204 Underground Level ( P4 & P5)

date stamped as received on June 22, 1999, prepared by Rosario Varacalli, Burka Architects Inc.;

A302 2^nd Floor Plan

A303 3^rd Floor Plan

A304 4^th - 7^th Floor Plans

A305 8^th - 10^th Floor Plans

A306 11^th Floor Plan

A307 12^th - 13^th Floor Plans

A308 14^th Floor Plan

A401 Heath Street Elevation

A402 Courtyard Elevation

A403 DeLisle Ave. Elevation

A404 Yonge Street Elevation

A501 Section Through Service Ramp

date stamped as received on March 26, 1999, prepared by Rosario Varacalli, Burka Architects Inc.;

A301 Ground Floor Plan

date stamped as received on June 4, 1999, prepared by Rosario Varacalli, Burka Architects Inc.;

LT1 Tree Survey Plan

LT2 Tree Preservation Plan

L1 Layout and Grading Plan

L2 Landscape Plan

L3 Section/ Elevation

LD1 City Details

LD2 Details

date stamped as received on June 22, 1999, prepared by NAK Design Group Landscape Architects, all as on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be approved and that as a condition of approval, the owner enter into an Development Agreement, under Section 41 of the Planning Act, prior to the issuance of the Board's Order, requiring that:

(a) Develop and Maintain Substantially in Accordance with Plans

(i) the proposed development, including the landscaping of the site, shall be undertaken and maintained substantially in accordance with the drawings referred to above;

(b) Garbage

(i) the owner shall provide and maintain a garbage room at least 40 m² in size in the residential component of the project and install and maintain a stationary compactor unit in the garbage room;

(ii) the owner shall provide and maintain a room at least 20 m² in size (or an alternative design which accommodates 3 bins plus manoeuvring room, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services) to drop off and store recyclable material, separate from the garbage room;

(iii) in the event that chute access to the recycle bins is proposed, the owner shall provide and maintain minimum vertical clearance of 140 cm over the glass/tin bin and 163 cm over the cardboard/paper bins;

(i) the owner shall provide and maintain the loading facilities and signage, and operate the loading facilities in accordance with the "Loading Area Management Plan" contained in Attachment A of the Traffic Impact Study - Supplementary Information, March 1999, prepared by BA Consulting Group Limited;

(ii) the owner shall provide and maintain 1 Type G loading space on the site, with a minimum vertical clearance of 6.1 metres over the front 8 metres of the loading space, and with a generally level surface and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion;

(iii) the owner shall construct the Type G loading space and all driveways and passageways providing access thereto to the requirements of the Ontario Building Code, including allowance for City of Toronto bulk lift and rear bin vehicle loading with impact factors where they are to be built as supported structures;

(iv) the owner shall construct all driveways and passageways providing access to and egress from the Type G loading space with a minimum width of 3.5 metres (4 metres where enclosed), a minimum vertical clearance of 4.3 metres and minimum inside and outside turning radii of 9 metres and 16 metres;

(v) the owner shall construct any decorative unit paver surface, to be used within any portion of the Type G loading space or area used to access the loading space, to applicable City standards to withstand truck traffic and indemnify the City against any damages that may be caused to any decorative unit pavers through the regular use of the area by City garbage trucks;

(vi) the owner shall provide and maintain a level service connection between the garbage room/recycling room and the Type G loading space for the transporting of container bins;

(vii) the owner shall provide and maintain a concrete base pad with a slope not exceeding 2% adjacent to the front of the Type G loading space for the storage of at least 8 compactor containers on collection day, such concrete pad to be designed in a manner to facilitate efficient collection operations, while not interfering with truck ingress to or egress from the loading space;

(viii) the owner shall provide and maintain a minimum of 2 Type B loading spaces on the site;

(ix) the owner shall provide and maintain a minimum vertical clearance of at least 4.3 metres over the entire service driveway system;

(x) the owner shall provide and maintain access to the loading facilities so that all trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion;

(d) Parking

(i) the owner shall provide and maintain parking so as to comply with the parking requirements of the Zoning By-law, save and except for the visitor parking requirement, which can be accommodated in the commercial parking garage component of the project;

(ii) the owner shall provide and maintain a physical separation between the residential and commercial portions of the underground parking garage to secure the availability of the resident parking spaces;

(iii) at least one parking space for every 100 or fewer parking spaces required by the Zoning By-law shall be provided and be located generally as shown on above referenced Plans Nos. A201, A202, A203, and A204 and shall be clearly designated for the exclusive use by people with disabilities, by means of the International Symbol of Accessibility for the Handicapped;

(e) Access to Underground Parking

(i) the owner shall provide and maintain a minimum inside turning radius of 4.5 m, with a minimum outside turning radius of 7.9 m for one-way traffic and 11.3 m for two-way traffic, at all turns on the access ramp system;

(f) Landscaping

(i) the owner shall provide and maintain sufficient soil depth and loading bearing capacity above the roof slab of the underground garage to permit the installation and mature growth of all proposed plant material;

(g) Grading Plan

(i) the owner shall submit a grading and drainage plan for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to the issuance of a building permit;

(h) Other

(i) the owner shall include a clause in the purchase or rental agreements informing prospective purchasers and lessees about the potential for noise and vibration intrusions and that the Toronto Transit Commission accepts no responsibility for any such effects;

(i) Pedestrian Walkways

(i) the owner shall provide and maintain within the development site a pedestrian walkway along the west lot line as shown as Public Walkway on Plan A101, date stamped as received on June 21, 1999, prepared by Rosario Varacalli, Burka Architects Inc., and that such pedestrian walkway shall:

(a) remain open and accessible to the public at all times between the hours of 6 a.m and 8 p.m. and such access may be refused, or a person may be required to leave the pedestrian walkway, in case of any person who:

(i) unreasonably interferes with the ability of other members of the public or lawful occupants to use the pedestrian walkway;

(ii) carries on unlawful activities;

(iii) acts in a manner unreasonably inconsistent with the intended use of the premises;

(iv) injures or attempts to injure any person, property or property rights;

(v) obstructs or injures any lawful business or occupation carried on by the building owner or person in lawful possession of the premises;

(vi) commits any criminal or quasi-criminal offence;

(b) be illuminated to a minimum average intensity of 10 lux on the pedestrian walkway surface during the time it is accessible to the public;

(j) Bicycle Parking

(i) prior to the issuance of a building permit for the development, the owner shall have submitted to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, the location of bicycle parking facilities required by the Zoning By-law; and

(k) Residential Amenity

(i) prior to the issuance of a building permit for the development, the owner shall have submitted to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, the location of residential amenity space required by the Zoning By-law.

(4) That the City Solicitor be authorized to prepare a Collateral Agreement between the City and the owner and that the owner enter into the Collateral Agreement, prior to the issuance of the Board's Order, requiring that:

(a) Transformer Vaults

(i) the owner shall provide space within the development for the construction of any transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes and sewer maintenance holes required in connection with the development;

(b) Improvements to public lands and sidewalks

(i) the owner shall be responsible for improvements to the public sidewalk/boulevard substantially in accordance with Plan Nos. L1 -Layout and Grading Plan, L2- Landscape Plan, L3- Section/ Elevation, LD1-City Details and LD2- Details date stamped as received on June 22, 1999, prepared by NAK Design Group Landscape Architects, as on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(ii) the owner shall submit an application for such improvements to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and carry out the improvements within a reasonable period of time or at the request of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services make a cash contribution to the City equal to the value of the improvements for the Commissioner to undertake the improvements as part of a comprehensive program;

(i) the owner shall have a qualified Transportation Engineer certify, in writing, to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services that the development has been designed and constructed in accordance with the updated Traffic Impact Study;

(ii) the owner shall provide, maintain and operate the traffic management measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(d) Noise Impact Statement

(i) the owner shall submit to, and have approved by, the City, prior to a building permit, a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with City Council's requirements;

(ii) the owner shall have a qualified Architect/Acoustical Consultant certify, in writing, to the City that the development has been designed and constructed in accordance with the Noise Impact Statement approved by the City;

(iii) the owner shall provide, maintain and operate the noise impact facilities and strategies stipulated in the plan approved by the City;

(e) Dust Control Plan

(i) the owner shall prepare a Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan and submit this plan to the Commissioner of Urban and Planning and Development Services for approval by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of any building permit;

(ii) the owner shall implement the measures in the Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health;

(f) Interim Public Parking

(i) the owner shall provide a minimum of 50 interim public parking spaces at all times during construction of the development, on site or within 300 metres of the site;

(ii) the owner shall submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services in consultation with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Service, prior to an issuance of a building permit, an interim parking plan, as set out in the Section 10.4.7 of the Settlement Report; and

(iii) the owner shall provide, maintain and operate the interim parking facilities and strategies stipulated in the plan approved by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

(5) That the owner shall submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for site specific by-laws, prior to the Ontario Municipal Board hearing:

(i) a Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and referenced to the Ontario Co-ordinate System delineating thereon by separate PARTS the portions of Premises Nos. 22 and 26 De Lisle Avenue to form part of the site; and

(ii) dimensioned plans of the development for the purpose of preparing site specific exemption by-laws, such plans to include final approved drawings of the development with sufficient horizontal and vertical dimensions of the exterior walls of the proposed buildings to enable the preparation of building envelope plans.

(6) That City Council support, in principle, the demolition of the residential houses at 21 to 31 Heath Street West and the use of these lands as interim parking lots provided the matters set out in Section 10.4.6 of this report are satisfactorily addressed, if this property has been identified in the approved interim parking plan as a site on which interim parking is to be provided.

(7) That the owner be advised:

(a) that the storm water run-off originating from the site should be disposed of through infiltration into the ground and that storm connections to the sewer system will only be permitted subject to the review and approval by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services of an engineering report detailing that site or soil conditions are unsuitable, the soil is contaminated or that processes associated with the development on the site may contaminate the storm run-off;

(b) of the need to submit a separate application to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for any work within the abutting road allowance, including the construction of the access ramps, and that additional requirements may be imposed as a condition of approval of any plans for work within the road allowance;

(c) that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services may implement turn restrictions at the driveway exit from the parking garage to DeLisle Avenue during certain periods in the event that, in the opinion of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, unacceptable operational problems occur on DeLisle Avenue;

(d) of the need to apply for revised municipal numbering to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to filing a formal application for a building permit;

(e) of the comments of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism respecting City-owned trees;

(f) of the requirement to pay the Parks Levy in accordance with Chapter 165, Article I of the Municipal Code, prior to the issuance of a building permit; and

(g) of the comments of the Chief Building Official respecting the Ontario Building Code.

Comments:

1.0 Applicant

Delisle Court Redevelopment Corporation, 30 St. Clair Avenue West, Suite 1404, Toronto Ontario, M2V 3A1.

2.0 Appeal to Ontario Municipal Board

The applicant has appealed the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval application to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Two pre-hearings were held on March 15, 1999 and May 3, 1999, which, among other matters, identified the participants, issues to be considered and the starting date of the hearing. The full hearing is to begin August 4, 1999 and is scheduled for 12 days.

3.0 Purpose

The purpose of this report is two-fold:

(i) To seek City Council's endorsement of a settlement with the applicant for 1560 Yonge Street, 10 DeLisle and parts of 22 and 26 DeLisle Avenue, at the August 4, 1999, Ontario Municipal Board hearing. This would involve Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit an increase in height and density for the site and Site Plan approval.

(ii) To indicate to City Council that I support the proposed development since, in my view, it represents an appropriate development for the site.

4.0 Site and Surrounding Area

4.1 Site

The site is located on the west side of Yonge Street, between Heath Street West and DeLisle Avenue. The 7,747 square metre (0.77 hectare) site is currently occupied by the Delisle Court shopping complex, the Toronto Parking Authority parking lot accommodating approximately 159 public parking spaces and the former manse for Calvin Presbyterian Church. A portion of the manse property was added to the site through a severance granted by the Committee of Adjustment on June 15, 1999 (Map No. 1).

4.2 Surrounding Area

To the north of the site, on Heath Street West, is Christ Church Deer Park. To the west along Heath Street West, are predominantly low density, 3 storey house form buildings. Immediately to the west of the site on DeLisle Avenue is Calvin Presbyterian Church. On the north side of DeLisle Avenue and west of the church there are two apartment buildings (10 and 11 storeys in height). To the south of the site is a house form building in commercial use and the DeLisle -St. Clair Parkette.

Further to the east, on the south side of DeLisle Avenue there are two recently approved but not yet constructed residential developments. The proposed development at 33 DeLisle Avenue is for a 10 storey, 153 residential condominium building and for 56-60 St. Clair Avenue and 55-61 DeLisle Avenue an 11 storey 159 residential condominium building.

The block directly south of the site forms the north-west quadrant of the Yonge-St. Clair commercial centre.

5.0 Agreement with Parking Authority

The Toronto Parking Authority has determined that there is a parking shortfall of approximately 100 spaces in the Yonge /St. Clair Area. To address this shortfall the Authority entered into an agreement with Delisle Court Redevelopment Corporation to redevelop the parking lot and provide additional public parking in a below grade garage.

At its meeting held on July 19 and 20, 1993, City Council adopted Clause 47 of Executive Committee Report No.14, thereby approving a Letter of Intent between the Toronto Parking Authority and Delisle Court Redevelopment Corporation to lease the above grade rights of 10 DeLisle Avenue for a period of 99 years.

Due to the passage of time, the economic downturn in the demand for office space in the area and in response to opposition from local residents, it was necessary to propose certain amendments to the original transaction. City Council, on December 9 and 10, 1996 approved these amendments.

Under the amended agreement, the Toronto Parking Authority is to retain ownership of a portion of the parking garage (approximately 250 spaces or 3 levels) and is to sell the strata (air rights to 10 DeLisle Avenue) above the public parking garage as well as the 4^th and 5^th levels of the proposed garage. Delisle Court Redevelopment Corporation would construct the parking garage and the Toronto Parking Authority would pay for the cost of construction of the public portion being approximately 250 to 260 spaces. During construction of the development there is a requirement to provide 50 to 75 public parking spaces to be operated by the Toronto Parking Authority.

To address the traffic concerns, identified through this application and discussed in Section 10.5 of this report, the Toronto Parking Authority has agreed to reduce the number of public parking spaces required as part of the redevelopment of the existing surface parking lot (from 250 spaces to 230 spaces).

6.0 Application History

This application has a long history and has gone through a number of modifications. To help understand the evolution of this application, a brief summary of the main events is provided below.

6.1 Original Application

This application was originally filed January 31, 1997. The application was to maintain the existing Delisle Court shopping complex fronting on Yonge Street and to construct a residential apartment complex containing 269 units in two towers and a row of 11 townhouses all above an underground municipal parking garage. The proposed density of the project was 5.08 times the area of the lot. The two towers of 15 and 12 storeys would be functionally integrated with the existing 2 storey Delisle Court commercial building on Yonge Street and would extend over the roof of Delisle Court. The 11 townhouses were proposed along the north-west boundary of the site, fronting on a gated cul-de-sac which would have been accessed via Heath Street West. This internal roadway would have also provided access to the lobbies of both apartment buildings. A one way service lane situated directly west of the existing Delisle Court development was proposed to service the existing retail and proposed residential uses. The existing service bay off DeLisle Avenue would have been removed.

6.2 Preliminary Report

A Preliminary Report (dated May 1, 1997) was submitted to the May 15, 1997 meeting of the City of Toronto Land Use Committee. The Preliminary Report set out design and development guidelines which were prepared in conjunction with the review of the Part II Plan and were intended to guide the physical re-development of the site.

6.3 First Public Meeting

A Planning Advisory Committee public meeting was held in the community on June 10, 1997, to discuss the original application. Approximately 52 people attended that meeting.

6.4 Revised Application

On June 11, 1998 a revised application was submitted. The proposal was modified to address concerns raised at the June 10, 1997 public meeting and to respond to the issues raised in the May 1, 1997 Preliminary Report. The revised application was to maintain the Delisle Court shopping complex and to construct an apartment building and underground parking garage on the existing surface parking lot. The gross floor area proposed was 26,332 square metres for a density of 4.5 times the area of the lot. The proposed building would have a height of 14 storeys along DeLisle Avenue and be terraced down to 3 storeys along Heath Street West.

The internal motor vehicle court previously proposed was eliminated to provide for a landscaped courtyard and a vehicle pick up/drop off area was introduced at the front entrance of the apartment building along DeLisle Avenue.

Access and egress to the residential and commercial parking garage would be from both Heath Street West and DeLisle Avenue. In this proposal 509 parking spaces would be provided: 251 would be operated as a commercial parking lot by the Parking Authority of Toronto; and 258 to serve the residential component of the development.

6.5 Revised Preliminary Report

A Revised Preliminary Report (dated July 8, 1998) was submitted to the July 22, 1998 meeting of the Toronto Community Council.

6.6 Second Public Meeting

A public meeting was held in the community on September 15, 1998, to discuss the revised application. Approximately 175 people attended that meeting. Issues raised at the meeting were: traffic; loss of surface parking; provision of public parking during construction; location of the garage entrance along Heath Street; the density, massing and height of the proposed building; the potential precedent that the proposal may set in the area; and that the Part II Plan review should be finished first.

6.7 Residents Working Group

An informal working group made up of area residents was established by the local Councillors to try and resolve the issues raised at the public meeting. The working group met five times with the local Councillors, the applicant and City representatives. The main issues discussed were: the height, massing and shadow impacts of the proposed building; the location of entrances to the parking garage and loading area; the traffic impact from both the residential and commercial components of the development; the status of the City's area traffic study; the preservation of the existing oak tree on DeLisle Avenue; and the design of the proposed mid block pedestrian connection.

6.8 Modifications to the Revised Application of June 11, 1998

In response to the concerns raised at the second public meeting, by the working group and by Civic officials, the applicant further revised the proposal as follows:

- the residential floor area has been reduced from 26,332 square metres to 24,326 square metres;

- the unit count has been reduced from 274 to 240 dwelling units;

- the number of commercial parking spaces has been reduced from 250 to 230;

- the massing has been altered to better articulate the building elevations, reduce shadow impacts and improve the relationship with house form building on Heath Street; and

- the applicant has secured a site for interim public parking during construction.

7.0 Applicable Planning Controls:

7.1 Official Plan

The Yonge-St. Clair Part II Official Plan designates the Delisle Court shopping complex (Yonge Street frontage) as "Yonge- St. Clair Commerce Centre - Sub Area 3". This designation permits residential uses and commercial uses up to a maximum total floor area of 4.25 times the area of the lot provided the residential floor area does not exceed 3.0 times the lot area and the commercial floor area does not exceed 2.0 times the lot area.

The Toronto Parking Authority parking lot and Calvin Presbyterian Church manse are designated as "Special Residence Area 'A'" in the Yonge - St. Clair Part II Official Plan. Under this designation, it is the policy of City Council that this area provide a transition between the adjacent Low Density Residence Area and the Yonge - St. Clair Commerce Centre. Within "Special Residence Area A" the Official Plan permits residential buildings with floor areas up to 2.0 times the lot area provided:

(i) the housing is municipally sponsored;

(ii) at least 50% of the units are made available for the purpose of senior citizens' housing;

(iii) at least 50% of the land is made available as public open space along the Heath Street frontage;

(iv) measures are taken to discourage additional traffic on Heath Street West; and

(v) the public open space is not compromised by the vehicular traffic access and egress.

7.2 Zoning By-law

The Delisle Court shopping complex (Yonge Street frontage) is zoned CR T4.25 C2.0 R3.0. This zoning permits residential uses and commercial uses up to a total floor area of 4.25 times the area of the lot provided the residential floor area does not exceed 3.0 times the lot area and the commercial floor area does not exceed 2.0 times the lot area. The height limit for this area is 30 metres (Map No.1).

The northern part of the parking lot is zoned R2 Z0.6. This zoning permits residential uses with floor area up to 0.6 times the area of a lot. The height limit for this area is 16 metres.

The southern part of the parking lot and the manse are zoned R2 Z2.0. This zoning permits residential uses with a floor area up to 2.0 times the area of a lot. The height limit for this area is 11 metres.

7.3 Part II Official Plan Review

My department has recently completed a review of the Yonge- St. Clair Part II Plan. The draft Part II Plan and proposed changes were discussed at 2 open house meetings on May 18 and 20, 1999. It is anticipated that the final report on the Part II Review will be submitted to the Toronto Community Council for consideration in September.

The contemplated Part II policies generally reflect the conceptual design of the building recommended by this report.

7.4 Site Plan Control

This development is subject to site plan control. The Site Plan Approval application has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board.

8.0 Reasons for this Application

The proposed development requires amendments to both the Official Plan and Zoning By-law because:

(i) the proposed density of 4.05 times the area of the lot exceeds the maximum permitted in both the Official Plan and Zoning By-law;

(ii) the proposed height of the building exceeds the maximum permitted of 16 metres for the DeLisle Avenue frontage and 11 metres for the Heath Street West frontage; and

(iii) other zoning variances identified by the Chief Building Official and noted in Recommendation 3(a) of this report.

9.0 Comments from Civic Officials:

The application has been circulated to Civic Officials whose comments are attached to this report as Appendix A.

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has identified various requirements in respect to the provision of access, parking, loading and garbage handling facilities.

The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism has advised that the applicant is required to submit the necessary tree removal applications for the proposed removal of 4 privately owned trees and 5 City owned trees. The Commissioner has also required that an appropriate protection zone be established for the white oak located in front of Calvin Presbyterian Church.

10.0 Planning Analysis:

10.1 Land Use

The existing Part II Plan, approved in 1976, states that consideration should be given to use the publicly owned portion of this property as a resource for municipally sponsored housing, municipal short term parking and/or public open space.

With regards to the provision of municipally sponsored housing, it should be noted that currently there are no Federal or Provincial housing programs available to fulfill this objective. Therefore, the applicant will be required to provide 25 per cent of the dwelling units as "low end of market" units. The maximum size of these units would be 70 square metres for bachelor and one-bed room units, 90 square metres for two-bedroom units and 98 square metres for three-bedroom units.

As part of the development, it is proposed that 230 public parking spaces be provided, which are to be operated by the Toronto Parking Authority.

In regards to the requirement for public open space, the intent of the Official Plan was to provide additional open space within the Yonge/St. Clair area. Since the adoption of the Part II Plan additional public open space has been secured at the St. Clair DeLisle Parkette (19 DeLisle Avenue) and the open space surrounding Yorkminster Park Baptist Church. The proposed development will provide a publicly accessible mid block connection between Heath Street West and DeLisle Avenue.

10.2 Density

The site has a split Official Plan designation, which would permit a maximum density of 4.25 times the area of the lot for the lands occupied by the existing commercial building (Yonge Street frontage) and a density of 2.0 times the area of the lot for the lands occupied by the parking lot. The current Official Plan designation would permit an approximate total floor area of 21, 815 square metres or 2.82 times coverage.

The site has three zoning designations which would permit a maximum density of 4.25 times the area of the lot for the portion of the lot occupied by the Delisle Court complex; 0.6 times the area of the lot for the north portion of the parking lot; and 2.0 times the area of the lot for the south portion of the parking lot. The current Zoning By-law provisions would permit an approximate total floor area of 18,359 square metres or 2.37 times coverage.

The proposed buildings would have a total floor area of 31, 250 square metres, comprised of 24,330 square metres of residential gross floor area and 6,920 square metres of non-residential gross floor area. The total density of the proposed project is 4.05 times the area of the lot; which exceeds the maximum density permitted by the Official Plan by 1.23 times coverage.

The density of the proposal generally reflects the surrounding context including the developments recently approved at 48-50 St. Clair Avenue West (33 DeLisle Avenue) and 56-60 St. Clair Avenue West and 55-61 DeLisle Avenue. The project at 48-50 St. Clair Avenue West, which was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board, is for a new 11 storey residential building with an overall density of 4.5 times the area of the lot. The project at 56-60 St. Clair Avenue West and 55-61 DeLisle Avenue, which was approved by City Council is for a mixed used building consisting of two 12 storey towers with an overall density of 4.5 times the area of the lot.

In addition, this site is located near the transportation node at Yonge and St. Clair (Yonge subway line and the St. Clair streetcar) and provides the opportunity to add to the housing stock with acceptable impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood.

10.3 Siting, Height and Massing

Of major concern to area residents has been the potential negative impact of high rise development abutting the low density area. The proposed building is designed so as to minimize negative impacts and make an appropriate transition from the Yonge/St. Clair commercial node and the residential neighbourhood. Members of the Residents Working Group approved of the proposed design.

10.3.1 Siting

Between the original and revised applications the applicant concluded that the existing Delisle Court commercial building could not be built upon or over without the addition of major structural support. This would have meant that existing tenants would have had to move out during construction which could have a negative impact on the Yonge Street commercial strip. Consequently, this was not pursued (Figure No. 1).

The proposed residential building fronts onto both DeLisle Avenue and Heath Street West. The setbacks on both frontages are consistent with the setbacks of adjacent properties and thereby maintain the rhythm of buildings and open space along the street. The proposed building has been designed with an internal courtyard extending the open space pattern of back yards found through the rest of the block.

10.3.2 Height

The highest portions of the proposed building are located on the eastern most portion of the site, forming an appropriate transition from the commercial node at Yonge St. Clair and the residential area to the west and north. Along the DeLisle Avenue frontage the building would have a height of 11 storeys which is consistent with existing and approved building heights along DeLisle Avenue. The 12^th, 13^th and 14^th storeys are stepped back from DeLisle Avenue reducing their visual impact when viewed from the street. The building steps down from 14 to 13 to 11 to 7 to 3 storeys along Heath Street West. The 3 storey height is consistent with height of the existing buildings in the adjacent low density neighbourhood.

10.3.3 Sun/Shade

The building steps down from the higher 14 storey element on DeLisle Avenue to the 3 storey element on Heath Street West. Shadow testing of the proposed building shows that the north sidewalk on Heath Street West will receive the desired minimum of 3 hours of sunlight at the equinox (September 21 and March 21).

10.3.4 Massing

The building has been designed so that the massing reflects the character of adjacent development on both Heath Street West and DeLisle Avenue (Figure Nos. 2-5). The DeLisle Avenue frontage would contain a building edge which is similar to the scale and form of the existing and proposed apartment buildings along DeLisle Avenue. The main entrance and the drop-off/ pick-up area for the proposed building would be located off DeLisle Avenue. The Heath Street West frontage is proposed to be developed with a three storey building edge which is consistent with the low density residence area along Heath Street. The grade related units along Heath Street West would have entrances on the street (Figure No. 10).

10.4 Parking and Loading

10.4.1 Residential Parking

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has reviewed the proposed parking supply for the residents of the project and finds it acceptable. The Commissioner advises that the provision of 266 spaces for the residents of this project satisfies the estimated parking demand of 194 spaces, based on the surveyed parking demand generated by the residents of condominium developments in the city. The proposed residential parking also complies with the Zoning By-law standard for apartment buildings containing 25 or more units of 1 parking space for every 102 square metres of residential gross floor area.

10.4.2 Visitor Parking

For the proposed project, no parking spaces are proposed specifically for the use of visitors generated by the residential component of the development. Instead, the visitor parking demand is proposed to be accommodated in the Toronto Parking Authority parking garage.

The Commissioner advises the visitor parking generated by this project is estimated to be 33 spaces, whereas, the Zoning By-law requirement is for 60 spaces. The Commissioner further advises that the expansion of the commercial parking facility from 159 to 230 (a 71 space increase) with no increase in commercial floor area will result in a net gain in parking supply in the area, which would be available to the visitors to the proposed residential component of this project. On this basis, the Commissioner finds the accommodation of the visitor parking requirements of this project in the Toronto Parking Authority garage acceptable.

10.4.3 Commercial Parking

The Part II Plan for Yonge-St. Clair states that it is the policy of Council to increase the number of municipally owned public parking spaces in the Yonge-St. Clair Planning District when it has been determined that there is an inadequate amount of spaces available for shoppers and visitors to the Yonge - St Clair Commerce Centre.

The Toronto Parking Authority has determined that there is a parking shortfall of approximately 100 spaces in the Yonge /St. Clair Area. To address this shortfall, the Authority has entered into an agreement with Delisle Court Redevelopment Corporation to redevelop the parking lot and provide additional public parking in a below grade garage.

The Toronto Parking Authority will operate 230 parking stalls for public parking. The Parking Authority lot will be located on the entry level and two upper levels of the parking garage and will incorporate enclosed pedestrian linkages to the Delisle Court commercial complex and the street level.

The public parking on the entry level of the garage will be operated as short term metered parking and can be accessed by motorists without having to go through the parking control area.

10.4.4 Access to Parking Garage

The public and residential parking facility are accessed by two driveways (one on Heath Street West and one on DeLisle Avenue). These driveways are located approximately 75 metres from Yonge Street.

Parking control facilities are located well within the garage and vehicle queuing activity would occur within the site. Specifically, space for the storage of 15 vehicles is provided in advance of the control gate which represents a considerable improvement over the existing conditions, where the control gates are located at the property line.

There will be a significant improvement to the parking access and egress which will result in substantially better traffic conditions.

10.4.5 Temporary Parking During Construction

The Yonge-St. Clair Part II Official Plan requires the provision of alternative short term parking during the period of construction of the project, when public parking is unavailable on the site. As part of the business arrangements with the Toronto Parking Authority the applicant is required to provide between 50 to 75 interim parking spaces during construction.

At this time the applicant has not provided the City with a interim parking plan. However, the applicant has indicated that they are looking at a number of options, including:

(i) constructing a temporary lot on 21-33 Heath Street West, which is the applicant's preferred option (discussed below in Section 10.8.2);

(ii) phasing the proposed development so interim parking could be provided on site, which is the applicant's least favoured option; or

(iii) leasing or acquiring spaces within 300 metres of the site.

10.4.6 Heath Street Properties

In a letter dated June 21, 1999 the applicant's solicitor advised that 1360980 Ontario Limited has entered into an agreement of purchase and sale of the properties at 21, 23, 27 and 33 Heath Street West and that 1360981 Ontario Limited has entered into agreement of purchase and sale with the owner of the properties at 25 and 31 Heath Street West. (collectively know as the "Adjacent Lands").

The applicant is proposing to use the Adjacent Lands for interim parking during the construction of the Delisle Court lands. This would require the issuance of demolition permits for the existing houses on the Adjacent Lands, as well as the approval of a Site Plan Application.

It is standard practice that permission for the demolition of residential buildings be granted only when a building permit for a new structure has been issued. In this case, the replacement use would be a temporary parking lot, with residential redevelopment occurring at a later date. In principle I would support the demolition of the existing buildings provided:

- the existing building at 33 Heath Street West is not demolished at this time (as this building would help to create a buffer for the neighbouring properties to the west);

- the demolition permit would not be issued until a building permit had been issued for the Delisle Court project; and

- after the interim use ceases, the owner would be required to landscape the property unless an application for building permit for a new residential development has been made. The design of both the temporary landscaping and the residential development would be secured through the Site Plan Application. The obligation to landscape the property would be secured through a Letter of Credit.

It is the City's intention that if the interim parking lot is to be located on these properties it would only be permitted for a temporary period. The period in which the parking lot would be permitted to operate will be determined through the approval of the interim parking plan. The applicant will be required to close the interim parking facility in conjunction with the opening of the commercial parking facility on the subject site.

The proposed use of the Adjacent Lands as an interim parking lot and future residential development site has only been discussed on a preliminary basis and the applicant has yet to submit any plans for either use. In principle, I would be prepared to support the use of the Adjacent Lands as an interim parking lot provided it was operated by the Toronto Parking Authority. Further residential development would have to conform to the existing zoning or an application to amend the Zoning By-law and/or Official Plan would be required. The residential development would be required to have an appropriate relationship with the 3 storey element of the recommended building and the existing single family residences along Heath Street. Under no circumstance would I be prepared to recommend a development which would, by virtue of its density, siting, height or otherwise, have any potential to destabilize the properties immediately to the west. To date rowhouses have been generally discussed and considered appropriate.

10.4.7 Interim Parking Plan

Given that an interim parking plan has yet to be formally submitted and the applicant has not finalized the arrangements for the interim parking, flexibility is required in the recommendations regarding this matter. I am recommending that prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant submit an interim parking strategy to the satisfaction of the City, which is to include matters such as: the number of interim parking spaces; the time period during which the parking lot would be operational; the location of the spaces (on site or within 300 metres) and proposed signage to indicate the location of interim parking spaces.

I am also recommending that a minimum of 50 interim parking spaces be provided which is consistent with the arrangement with the Toronto Parking Authority that was approved by City Council previously.

10.4.8 Loading

Currently, the Delisle Court commercial complex is served by one Type B loading bay located off DeLisle Avenue at the rear of the building. Trucks using this loading facility are required to back in from the public street thereby disrupting the traffic flow on DeLisle Avenue.

A new shared loading facility is proposed to serve the needs of the commercial complex and the new residential building. The loading facilities incorporate 3 Type B and 2 Type G loading spaces and separate refuse handling facilities. The loading facility is accessed off a service driveway extending between DeLisle Avenue and Heath Street West, which allows all truck manoeuvring activities to occur off street (Figure No. 6).

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has reviewed the proposed loading arrangement for the project and finds it acceptable. The Commissioner advises that the provision of 3 Type B and 2 Type G loading spaces satisfies the estimated demand generated by this project for 2 Type B and 1 Type G loading spaces.

The Commissioner notes that the northernmost Type G and Adjacent Type B loading space cannot be used simultaneously. The Commissioner advises that given that the supply of loading spaces exceeds the estimated loading demand, this arrangement is acceptable.

The Commissioner advises that the Loading and Management Plan contained in the Traffic Impact Study is satisfactory and that the owner will be required to operate the loading facilities in accordance with this plan.

The proposed loading facilities will help resolve an existing neighbourhood concern related to the location of the servicing area for the Delisle Court Complex which regularly generates traffic problems at the east end of DeLisle Avenue.

10.5 Traffic

10.5.1 Existing Conditions

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services advises that the intersection of Yonge Street and DeLisle Avenue, which is an unsignalized "T" intersection that operates under "stop" control, is the critical element of the road network, insofar as this development project impacts on the operations of the abutting road network. The intersection operates under constrained conditions during peak hours, and is affected by congestion on Yonge Street and on-street loading operations on DeLisle Avenue.

10.5.2 Traffic Generation and Impacts

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services states that although it is recognized that the net additional traffic generated by this development to the Yonge Street/ DeLisle Avenue intersection is not, from strictly a volume perspective, a large amount (i.e. only 35 vehicles), the addition of any traffic to an already constrained condition is problematic, even for a short duration. He also indicates that lengthy delays and queues could result in forced driving habits which could create hazardous conditions for motorists, pedestrians and cyclists in the vicinity of the intersection. In order to address these concerns, the applicant has proposed to reduce the residential component of this project and the number of public parking spaces in order to minimize the impact of this development on the operations of the Yonge Street/ DeLisle intersection. The Commissioner advises the proposed changes would reduce the total 2-way traffic generated by this development from 145 to 125 vehicles during the p.m. peak hour, and the number of vehicles utilizing the Yonge Street/ DeLisle Avenue intersection from 35 to 25 vehicles.

The Commissioner further advises that even with the down-sizing of the development, and the resultant reduction in the traffic generated by this project, the Yonge Street/ DeLisle Avenue intersection is expected to continue to operate under constrained conditions. Consequently, the consultant has identified a series of area traffic and parking initiatives, which could address the operational difficulties at the Yonge Street/ DeLisle Avenue intersection. The Commissioner notes that some of these measures have area-wide implications that should best be addressed as part of an area-wide neighbourhood traffic study.

The Commissioner indicates that although the traffic generated by the proposed down-sized development would marginally impact the operations of the Yonge Street/ DeLisle Avenue intersection, it must be recognized that an as-of-right development of this site could have similar traffic implications. As a result, the applicant's consultant was requested to compare the traffic generated by as-of-right development versus the proposed development. The consultant determined that a development on this site, permitted under the current Zoning By-law provisions, would generate approximately 30 vehicles at the Yonge Street/DeLisle Avenue intersection. The consultant estimated that the proposed development would, in fact, generate less traffic at this location than what otherwise, could be generated by as-of-right development. The Commissioner concludes that, for this reason, and given the area-wide traffic study which will be undertaken to address neighbourhood traffic issues, the proposed development is satisfactory from a traffic perspective. Regardless, the Commissioner advises that should unacceptable traffic operations occur on DeLisle Avenue, turn restrictions may be imposed at the egress from the parking facility to DeLisle Avenue to prohibit outbound left turns during peak hour conditions.

10.5.3 St. Clair Avenue/Yonge Street Traffic Study

The applicant's consultant has identified several area traffic and parking initiatives which could be implemented to address traffic operational issues in the north-west quadrant of the Yonge Street/St. Clair Avenue intersection in general, and the Yonge Street/ DeLisle Avenue intersection, specifically.

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services advises that each of these measures, while possibly improving the operations of the Yonge Street/ DeLisle Avenue intersection, could have negative implications on the abutting residential areas, particularly with respect to the infiltration of transient traffic into the neighbourhood. Consequently, he did not recommend that any mitigating measures be implemented in conjunction with the construction of this development. Instead he recommended that these measures should be considered and evaluated in the context of the area-wide neighbourhood traffic study which his Department will be undertaking to address the traffic operational concerns of the residents in this area. In this regard, the Commissioner has required that the applicant contribute funds in the amount of $100,000 to be used by the City to retain a qualified transportation consultant to undertake this study and for the installation of any mitigating measures recommended by the consultant and approved by the Commissioner, in consultation with the local Councillors. Unused funds would be refunded to the applicant.

10.6 Pedestrian Walkway

Currently the neighbourhood to the northwest uses the parking lot as an informal pedestrian route to the subway station. Likewise, the community to the southwest uses it as a route to Christ Church Deer Park. A number of residents have expressed an interest in maintaining this pedestrian connection. In response, the applicant is proposing a mid block pedestrian connection along the west property line, connecting Heath Street West and DeLisle Avenue (Figure No. 1). It is proposed that the mid block pedestrian walkway would remain open and accessible to the public at all times between the hours of 6 a.m and 8 p.m. This pedestrian connection will be secured through Site Plan Approval.

10.7 Tree Removal

The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism has advised that the necessary tree removal applications for the proposed removal of 4 privately owned trees and 5 City owned trees have been made.

The Commissioner further advises that no objections have been received regarding the removal of the 4 privately owned trees and that he does not oppose the removal of the City owned trees.

To protect the white oak (84 cm diameter) located in front of Calvin Presbyterian Church, the proposed below grade portion of the building adjacent to the tree has been set back between 8 and 10 metres. The proposed protection zone is acceptable to the Commissioner.

10.8 Section 37 Agreement

In order to address the concerns expressed by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services regarding traffic in the area, the applicant has agreed to provide a contribution of $100,000 from which an area traffic study and subsequent transportation improvements can be funded. This contribution will be secured by the use of a Section 37 Agreement. Further, the Section 37 Agreement will secure the provision of the interim public parking.

Conclusion:

This report recommends that City Council permit the development on 1560 Yonge Street, 10 DeLisle Avenue and parts of 22 and 26 DeLisle Avenue of a 14 storey mixed use development containing 240 residential units and having a total density of 4.05 times the area of the lot.

The proposed settlement represents an appropriate development which is being recommended because it:

- has been massed to be compatible with adjacent developments;

- provides grade related units accessible from Heath Street West;

- limits, local traffic impacts to those which would be expected to result from the as-of-right development of the site;

- includes provision for a $100,000 contribution for a local traffic study and transportation improvements;

- internalizes the loading activities of the existing commercial building and thus improves traffic flow on DeLisle Avenue;

- satisfactory improves queuing for the commercial parking;

- provides a net addition of 71 public parking spaces; and

- provides a mid block pedestrian connection between Heath Street West and DeLisle Avenue.

Representatives for the applicant have agreed to formally submit the revised application to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Contact Name:

Gregory Byrne

City Planning Division, North Section

Telephone: 392-0881

Fax: 392-1330

E-mail: gbyrne@toronto.ca

--------

Application Data Sheet

Site Plan Approval:	Y	Application Number:	197004
Rezoning:	Y	Application Date:	January 29, 1997
O. P. A.:	Y	Date of Revision:	June 22, 1999

Confirmed Municipal Address: 1560 Yonge Street, 10 De Lisle Avenue and 22 De Lisle Avenue.

Nearest Intersection: Northwest corner of De Lisle Avenue and Yonge Street.

Project Description: To construct a 14-storey apartment building to an existing 2-storey retail building on Yonge St. and an underground municipal public parking garage.

Applicant:

De Lisle Court Corp.

30 St. Clair Avenue West #1404

927-0788
Agent:

De Lisle Court Corp.

30 St. Clair Avenue West #1404

927-0788
Architect:

BURKA Architects

201 - 4800 Dufferin Street

665-0722

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation: Site Specific Provision: No

Zoning District: CR T4.25 C2.0 R3.0; R2 Z2.0; R2 Z0.6 Historical Status: No

Height Limit (m): 11.0; 16.0; 30.0 Site Plan Control: Yes

Project Information

Site Area: 7744.8 m² Height: Storeys: 14

Frontage: Metres: 42.82

Depth:

Indoor Outdoor

Ground Floor: Parking Spaces: 239

Residential GFA: 24326.0 m² Loading Docks: 3 B

Non-Residential GFA: 6916.0 m² (number, type) 2 G

Total GFA: 31242.0 m²

Dwelling Units Floor Area Breakdown

Tenure: Condo Land Use Above Grade Below Grade

Bachelors: 26 Residential 24326.0 m²

1 Bedroom: 66 Existing retail 6916.0 m²

2 Bedroom: 142 Amenity Space (Internal) 540.0 m²

3 Bedroom: 6 Amenity Space (External) 540.0 m²

Total Units: 240

Proposed Density

Residential Density: 3.14 Non-Residential Density: 0.89 Total Density: 4.05

Comments

Status: Settlement Report

Data valid: June 17, 1999 Section: CP South District Phone: 392-7333

--------

Appendix A

Comments from Civic Officials

1. Works and Emergency Services, dated June 24, 1999.

Comments:

The project located on the rectangular-shaped parcel on the west side of Yonge Street extending between Heath Street West and Delisle Avenue, was the subject of the Departmental report dated November 16, 1998. The project has now been revised to:

- Decrease the number of dwelling units from 274 to 240;

- Decrease the number of parking spaces from 509 to 496 (consisting of 230 spaces for the Toronto Parking Authority facility plus 266 spaces for residents);

- Eliminate the 3-space resident parking layby within the De Lisle Avenue road allowance;

- Modify the ramps and circulation systems within the underground parking garage, including the provision of new support columns and changes to the slope of the access ramp;

- Indicate a maximum slope of the loading egress ramp on the site of 8%;

- Include a concrete pad adjacent to the garbage room, for the placement of bins on collection days;

- Improve the turning radii for the service lane egress to Heath Street;

- Provide a 20 sq.m. recyclable storage room, accessible to project residents, for the storage of recyclables until collection day;

- Increase the area of the garbage storage room to provide for the placement of bins during collection operations; and

- Submit additional transportation analysis of the impacts of the proposed development project.

The revisions are generally acceptable. As a result, Recommendation No. 1(w) of the November 16, 1998 report regarding the submission of revised plans has been satisfied with respect to Recommendation Nos. 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e), 1(g), 1(i), 1(j) and 1(p). The recommendation for the submission of a grading and drainage plan for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services is still required prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Parking

On the basis of the reduced unit count and revised unit mix, the estimated parking demand generated by the residents of this project is for 194 spaces, while as far as can be ascertained, the Zoning By-law requirement for residents is for 239 spaces. Given that the Zoning By-law requirement for resident parking exceeds the estimated parking demand generated by the residents, the provision of resident parking to satisfy the requirements of the Zoning By-law, in this case 266 spaces, is acceptable.

As indicated in the November 16, 1999 report, the accommodation of the visitor parking requirements of this project in the Toronto Parking Authority garage located on this site is acceptable.

The proposed commercial parking facility comprises 159 existing parking spaces and 71 proposed parking spaces for a total of 230 spaces. This is acceptable. The applicant is required to maintain a minimum of 50 commercial parking spaces in the area during the construction of this project. The applicant has indicated that this parking will be provided on the lots located on the south side of Heath Street immediately to the west of this development site. Plans of the proposed interim parking facilities must be submitted for review and approval of this Department. The applicant is advised that the interim parking facility must be closed in conjunction with the opening of the commercial parking facility on the subject site.

Traffic Impact Study

Departmental comments on the Traffic Impact Study, dated September 15, 1998, prepared by BA Consulting Group Limited, were provided in a November 2, 1998 letter to the consultant. It was indicated in the November 2, 1998 letter, as well as in the November 16, 1999 report, that additional technical information was required from the applicant's transportation consultant prior to finalizing the Departmental comments on the transportation implications of this proposal. In response, the applicant has submitted the following material:

- Traffic Impact Study - Supplementary Information, March 1999;

- a May 31, 1999 letter with respect to the operation of the Yonge Street/Delisle Avenue intersection; and

- table dated June 10, 1999 outlining a comparison of the traffic generated by various development scenarios, including as-of-right development under the provisions of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

In addition, staff have had several meetings with the consultant, and have viewed videotapes recorded by the consultant on the operations of the Yonge/Delisle intersection during peak operating conditions. Staff have also undertaken field investigations.

Existing Conditions

The intersection of Yonge Street and Delisle Avenue, which is an unsignalized "T" intersection that operates under "stop" control, is the critical element of the road network, insofar as the impact of this development project on the operations of the abutting road network. The intersection operates under constrained conditions during the peak hours, and is affected by congestion on Yonge Street and on-street loading operations on Delisle Avenue.

Observations at this intersection have revealed that some of the existing eastbound left turns at this intersection are completed in two stages: a motorist would enter a gap in the southbound traffic, thereby blocking the southbound traffic lanes, and then complete the turn when there is a sufficient gap in the northbound traffic. Other turns at this intersection are facilitated by "courtesy" gaps provided by Yonge Street motorists.

It was indicated in the November 16, 1998 report that the impact of the proposed installation of parking meters on Delisle Avenue on traffic operations in the vicinity of the site should be considered in the context of the required Traffic Impact Study. Although the consultant has not addressed this issue in the submissions, staff have compared traffic counts along Delisle Avenue undertaken before and after the installation of the parking meters. The counts indicate that there has been no significant change in the peak hour traffic volumes on Delisle Avenue as a result of the installations.

Traffic Generation and Impacts

In the September 1998 Traffic Report, the consultant estimated that the net additional traffic generated by the proposed development (i.e. in addition to the traffic generated by the existing parking lot on the site) would be approximately 155 two-way vehicle trips in the p.m. peak hour. This was adjusted to be 145 two-way vehicle trips to reflect subsequent revisions to the proposal. Of these 145 vehicle trips, it was estimated that 35 of these trips would utilize the Yonge Street/Delisle Street intersection.

Because of the constrained operating conditions at the Yonge Street/Delisle Avenue intersection, the consultant has indicated that the traffic engineering methodology typically used to evaluate the performance of the intersection, as outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (1994), is not appropriate in this instance. Instead, the consultant has attempted to simulate future operating conditions by actually adding traffic to this intersection (field staff were instructed to drive along Delisle Avenue and turn at the intersection) to reflect the future forecasted volumes. Traffic volumes on Yonge Street were not increased.

The consultant concluded that:

"For the majority of the peak hour, the simulated addition of new background and Delisle Court Redevelopment Project traffic to the 'base' volumes already on the network is accommodated without significantly altering traffic operations at the intersection. However, a noticeable increase in queuing and delay were observed on Delisle Avenue, for a short period."

Although it is recognized that the net additional traffic generated by this development to the Yonge Street/Delisle Avenue intersection is not, from strictly a volume perspective, a large amount (i.e. only 35 vehicles), the addition of any traffic to an already constrained condition is problematic, even for a short duration. The lengthy delays and queues could result in forced driving habits which could create hazardous conditions for motorists, pedestrians and cyclists in the vicinity of the intersection. In order to address these concerns, the applicant has proposed to reduce the residential component of this project and the number of public parking spaces in order to minimize the impact of this development, specifically on the operations of the Yonge Street/Delisle Avenue intersection. The proposed changes, as outlined previously, would reduce the total 2-way traffic generated by this development from 145 to 125 vehicles during the p.m. peak hour, and the number of vehicles utilizing the Yonge Street/Delisle Avenue intersection from 35 to 25 vehicles.

Even with down-sizing of the development, and the resultant reduction in the traffic generated by this project, the Yonge Street/Delisle Avenue intersection is expected to continue to operate under constrained conditions. Consequently, the consultant has identified a series of area traffic and parking initiatives, which are described further in the section below, which could be considered to address the operational difficulties at the Yonge Street/Delisle Avenue intersection. It should be noted, however, that some of these measures have area-wide implications that should best be addressed as part of an area-wide neighbourhood traffic study.

Although the traffic generated by the proposed down-sized development would marginally impact the operations of the Yonge Street/Delisle Avenue intersection, it must be recognized that as-of-right development of this site could have similar traffic implications. As a result, the consultant was requested to compare the traffic generated by as-of-right development versus the proposed development. The consultant determined that a development on this site, permitted under the current Zoning By-law provisions, would generate approximately 30 vehicles at the Yonge Street/Delisle Avenue intersection. Therefore, it is estimated that the proposed development would, in fact, generate less traffic at this location than what, otherwise, would be generated by as-of-right development. For this reason, and given the area-wide traffic study which will be undertaken to address neighbourhood traffic issues, the proposed development from a traffic impact perspective is satisfactory under the circumstances. Regardless, the applicant is advised that should unacceptable traffic operations occur on Delisle Avenue, turn restrictions may be imposed at the egress from the parking facility to Delisle Avenue to prohibit outbound left turns during peak hour conditions.

Mitigating Measures and the St. Clair Avenue/Yonge Street Traffic Study

In their May 31, 1999 letter, the consultant has identified several area traffic and parking initiatives which could be implemented to address traffic operational issues in the north-west quadrant of the Yonge Street/St. Clair Avenue intersection, in general, and the Yonge Street/Delisle Avenue intersection, specifically. These include, among other things:

- introduction of turn restrictions at the Yonge Street/Delisle Avenue intersection;

- widening of Delisle Avenue at its intersection with Yonge Street to provide separate left turn and right turn lanes;

- installation of traffic signals at the Yonge Street/Delisle Avenue intersection;

- changes to the existing turn restrictions at the Yonge Street/Heath Street intersection;

- realignment of the Yonge Street/Heath Street intersection;

- changes to the on-street parking regulations on Delisle Avenue; and

- elimination of existing turn restrictions at the Yonge Street/St. Clair Avenue intersection.

Each of these measures, while possibly improving the operations of the Yonge Street/Delisle Avenue intersection, could have negative implications on the abutting residential areas, particularly with respect to the infiltration of transient traffic through the neighbourhood. Consequently, it is not recommended that any of these mitigating measures be implemented in conjunction with the construction of this development. Instead, these measures should be considered and evaluated in the context of the area-wide neighbourhood traffic study which this Department will be undertaking to address the traffic operational concerns of the residents in this area. In this regard, the applicant is required to contribute funds in the amount of $100,000 to be used by the City to retain a qualified transportation consultant to undertake this study and for the installation of any mitigating measures recommended by the consultant and approved by this Department, in consultation with the local Councillors. In the event that, in the opinion of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, the entire amount is not required for the traffic study or to implement the mitigating measures, the City will return the unused portion to the applicant.

Loading Management Plan

The "Loading Area Management Plan" contained in Attachment A of the Traffic Impact Study - Supplementary Information, March 1999 report is satisfactory. The owner is required to provide and maintain the loading facilities and signage, and to operate the facilities in accordance with this plan.

Noise Impact Statement

The previous comments and recommendations contained in the November 16, 1998 Departmental report pertaining to Noise Impact Statements are now under the purview of your Department.

As a result of the foregoing, Recommendation Nos. 1(t), 1(u) and 1(v) of the November 16, 1998 report with respect to the Noise Impact Statement and measures, as it relates to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, are no longer applicable, Recommendation Nos. 1(k) and 1(w) should be amended as follows:

1(k) Comply with the parking requirements of the Zoning By-law, save and except for the visitor parking requirement, which can be accommodated in the commercial parking garage component of the project;

1(w) Submit a grading and drainage plan for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to the issuance of a building permit;

and Recommendation Nos. 1(x), 1(y), 3, 4 and 5 should be added as follows:

1(x) Provide funds in the amount of $100,000, in the form of a certified cheque or letter of credit, prior to the issuance of a building permit, to be used by the City to retain a qualified transportation consultant to undertake a neighbourhood traffic study of the Yonge Street/St. Clair Avenue area, and for the installation of any mitigating measures recommended by the consultant and approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the local Councillors;

1(y) Provide and maintain the loading facilities and signage, and operate the loading facilities in accordance with the "Loading Area Management Plan" contained in Attachment A of the Traffic Impact Study - Supplementary Information, March 1999, prepared by BA Consulting Group Limited;

(3) That the owner and the Toronto Parking Authority be advised that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services may implement turn restrictions at the driveway exit from the parking garage to Delisle Avenue during certain periods in the event that, in the opinion of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, unacceptable operational problems occur on Delisle Avenue;

(4) That the owner be advised of the need to submit a separate application to this Department for any work within the abutting road allowances, including the construction of the access ramps, and that additional requirements may be imposed as a condition of approval of any plans for work within the road allowance; and

(5) That the owner be required to provide and maintain a minimum of 50 parking spaces in the vicinity of the site for an interim period during the construction of the project on this site and that these 50 parking spaces be eliminated in conjunction with the opening of the public parking facility on this site.

November 16, 1998

Recommendations:

1. That the owner be required to:

(a) Provide space within the development for the construction of any transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes and sewer maintenance holes required in connection with the development;

(b) Provide and maintain a garbage room at least 40 m² in size in the residential component of the project and install and maintain a stationary compactor unit in the garbage room;

(c) Provide and maintain a room at least 20 m² in size (or an alternative design which accommodates 3 bins plus manoeuvring room, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services) to drop-off and store recyclable material, separate from the garbage room;

(d) In the event that chute access to the recycle bins is proposed, provide and maintain minimum vertical clearance of 140 cm over the glass/tin bin and 163 cm over the cardboard/paper bins;

(e) Provide and maintain 1 Type G loading space on the site, with a minimum vertical clearance of 6.1 m over the front 8 m of the loading space, and with a generally level surface and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion;

(f) Construct the Type G loading space and all driveways and passageways providing access thereto to the requirements of the Ontario Building Code, including allowance for City of Toronto bulk lift and rear bin vehicle loading with impact factors where they are to be built as supported structures;

(g) Construct all driveways and passageways providing access to and egress from the Type G loading space with a minimum width of 3.5 m (4 m where enclosed), a minimum vertical clearance of 4.3 m and minimum inside and outside turning radii of 9 m and 16 m;

(h) Construct any decorative unit paver surface, to be used within any portion of the Type G loading space or area used to access the loading space, to applicable City standards to withstand truck traffic and indemnify the City against any damages that may be caused to any decorative unit pavers through the regular use of the area by City garbage trucks;

(i) Provide and maintain a level service connection between the garbage room/recycling room and the Type G loading space for the transporting of container bins;

(j) Provide and maintain a concrete base pad with a slope not exceeding 2% adjacent to the front of the Type G loading space for the storage of at least 8 compactor containers on collection day, such concrete pad to be designed in a manner to facilitate efficient collection operations, while not interfering with truck ingress to or egress from the loading space;

(k) Provide and maintain a minimum of 258 parking spaces on the site for the exclusive use of the residents of the project;

(l) Submit to and have approved by, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services an updated Traffic Impact Study for the project, prepared by a qualified Transportation Planner/ Engineer, which addresses, among other things, options to regulate site traffic distribution through turning restrictions and on-site parking and access control measures, and a loading dock management plan;

(m) Have a qualified Transportation Engineer certify, in writing, to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services that the development has been designed and constructed in accordance with the updated Traffic Impact Study approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(n) Provide and maintain a minimum inside turning radius of 4.5 m, with a minimum outside turning radius of 7.9 m for one-way traffic and 11.3 m for two-way traffic, at all turns on the access ramp system;

(o) Provide and maintain a minimum of 1 Type G plus 2 Type B loading spaces on the site;

(p) Provide and maintain a minimum vertical clearance of at least 4.3 m over the entire service driveway system;

(q) Provide and maintain access to the loading facilities so that all trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion;

(r) Submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

(i) A Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and referenced to the Ontario Co-ordinate System delineating thereon by separate PARTS the portions of Premises Nos. 22 and 26 De Lisle Avenue to form part of the site;

(ii) Dimensioned plans of the development for the purpose of preparing site specific exemption by-laws, such plans to include final approved drawings of the development with sufficient horizontal and vertical dimensions of the exterior walls of the proposed buildings to enable the preparation of building envelope plans;

and such plans should be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to the introduction of bills in Council;

(s) Apply for revised municipal numbering to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to filing a formal application for a building permit;

(t) Submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the introduction of a bill in Council a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with City Council's requirements;

(u) Have a qualified Architect/Acoustical Consultant certify, in writing, to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services that the development has been designed and constructed in accordance with the Noise Impact Statement approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(v) Provide, maintain and operate the noise impact and traffic management measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the respective plans approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and

(w) Submit a grading and drainage plan and revised drawings with respect to Recommendation Nos. 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e), 1(g), 1(i), 1(j) and 1(p) above, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

2. That the owner be advised that the storm water run-off originating from the site should be disposed of through infiltration into the ground and that storm connections to the sewer system will only be permitted subject to the review and approval by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services of an engineering report detailing that site or soil conditions are unsuitable, the soil is contaminated or that processes associated with the development on the site may contaminate the storm run-off.

Comments:

Location

Rectangular-shaped parcel on the west side of Yonge Street extending between Heath Street West and Delisle Avenue.

Proposal

Construction of a 274-unit apartment building and a parking garage addition to the existing Delisle Court commercial development, which contains 6,916 m² of retail space and a 147-space Toronto Parking Authority (T.P.A.) surface parking lot. The expanded parking facility will contain 509 spaces, comprising a 251-space T.P.A. facility and 258 spaces to serve the proposed residential dwelling units.

Parking

The provision of 258 spaces for the residents of this project satisfies the estimated parking demand generated by the residents of this project for 238 spaces, based on the surveyed parking demand generated by the residents of condominium developments in the City, and the Zoning By law requirement, as far as can be ascertained, for 258 spaces for the residents. The proposed parking supply for residents is acceptable.

The visitor parking generated by this project is estimated to be 33 spaces, whereas, the Zoning By-law requirement, as far as can be ascertained, is for 69 spaces. However, no parking spaces are proposed specifically for the use of visitors generated by the residential development. Instead, the visitor parking demand is proposed to be accommodated in the T.P.A. parking garage.

The expansion of the commercial parking facility (the T.P.A. garage) from 147 spaces to 251 spaces, (a 104-space increase) with no increase in commercial floor area will result in a net gain in parking supply in the area, which would be available to the visitors to the proposed residential component of this project. On this basis, the accommodation of the visitor parking requirements of this project in the T.P.A. garage is acceptable.

The design of the parking garage will be subject to the requirements of the T.P.A. Comments on the operations of the parking garage are addressed below in the section on Traffic Impact Study.

Traffic Impact Study

A Traffic Impact Study, dated September 15, 1998, has been prepared by BA Consulting Group Limited on behalf of the applicant. The study addresses, among other things, an assessment of existing traffic conditions in the area, an estimate of the traffic generated by the proposed project, an analysis of the operations of the access driveways and controls and the impact of the traffic on the operations of the abutting road network. Departmental comments on this Traffic Study were provided in a November 2, 1998 letter to the consultant, copy to you. As indicated in the letter, additional technical information is required from the consultant prior to finalizing Departmental comments on the transportation implications of this proposal, including the identification of any mitigating measures required to be implemented in conjunction with this project.

For your information, City Council at it's meeting of July 14, 1997 approved the installation of metered parking islands on the south side of Delisle Avenue from Premises No.22 Delisle Avenue to Deer Park Crescent. Furthermore, By-law No. 1997-0355 which authorized the narrowing of the pavement along the same portion of the street (for traffic calming purposes) has been rescinded. The impact of the proposed installation of metered parking on Delisle Avenue on traffic operations in the vicinity of the site should be considered in the context of the required Traffic Impact Study for the project.

It is noted that this Department is currently undertaking an area-wide traffic study (the Yonge/St. Clair Traffic Study). The projected completion date for the study is mid-1999. The additional information required for the Traffic Study for this project can proceed independently. It is anticipated that the results of the site-specific traffic study will be incorporated into the projected traffic conditions in the area-wide traffic study.

The proposed provision of 3 Type B and 2 Type G loading spaces off a service driveway extending between Delisle Avenue and Heath Street West satisfies the estimated Zoning By-law requirement and the estimated demand generated by this project for 2 Type B and 1 Type G loading spaces. The proposed loading space supply is acceptable.

It is noted that the northernmost Type G and adjacent Type B loading spaces cannot be used simultaneously. Given that the supply of loading spaces exceeds the estimated loading demand, this arrangement is acceptable. Nevertheless, the required updated Traffic Impact Study must also include a loading dock management plan which describes the physical and operational measures that will be provided to ensure site-related truck activity is internalized to the greatest extent possible.

It is not clear from the drawings whether the minimum vertical clearance requirements for a Type G loading space have been satisfied. In this regard, a minimum vertical clearance of 6.1 m is required over the first 8 m of the loading space and at least 4.3 m over the balance of the space and the entire service driveway. Vertical clearance information should be clearly illustrated on revised plans.

Refuse Handling, Storage and Disposal

The City will to provide the residential component of the project with the bulk lift method of refuse collection service in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, Chapter 309, Solid Waste. This requires the provision and maintenance of a Type G loading space and garbage and recycling storage rooms as set out in Recommendation Nos. 1(b) to 1(j), above.

The current proposal involves a combined garbage/recyclable room with a single egress to the loading space. This is unacceptable. The facilities should be redesigned to provide residential access to a separate recycling room with room for 3 1.5 m x 2.5 m bins. If chute access to the bins is proposed, minimum vertical clearances for the chutes over the bins is 140 cm for the glass/tin bin and 163 cm for the 2 cardboard/paper bins. The recycling room design must also provide for adequate egress to accommodate bins from the recycling room to the concrete base pad located adjacent to the loading space.

The proposed Type G loading space appears to be generally satisfactory, subject to the provision of adequate vertical clearance, as described above, and the provision of a suitable concrete base pad adjacent to the loading space for placement of bins on collection day, as required by Recommendation No. 1(j), above. The design of the base pad must be conducive to efficient refuse collection service but not interfere with truck turning movements into or out of the loading space. The current design would involve individual bins being wheeled out of the garbage room to the front of the loading space during collection operations and is unacceptable.

Noise Impact Statement

The owner is required to submit a satisfactory Noise Impact Statement for the enlarged project.

Municipal Services and Storm Water Management

The existing water distribution and sewer systems are adequate to accommodate the development.

It is the policy of City Council to require the infiltration of storm water run-off into the ground for all new buildings, whenever possible. Therefore, storm connections to the City sewer system will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that infiltrating storm water into the ground is not feasible. Further information regarding storm drainage can be obtained by contacting the Engineering Branch (telephone no. 392-6787).

The applicant should submit a plan showing proposed grades and details of the proposed drainage facilities for review and approval.

Reference Plans of Survey

Portions of the site (Premises Nos. 1560 Yonge Street and 10 De Lisle Avenue) are adequately described on existing Reference Plans of Survey 63R-3971 and 63R-803. The portions of Premises Nos. 22 and 26 De Lisle Avenue to form part of the site must also be shown as separate PARTS on a Reference Plan of Survey.

Municipal Numbering

The owner should submit an application for revised municipal numbering as more particularly set out in Recommendation No. 1(s), above.

2. Economic Development, Culture & Tourism (Parks), dated June 23, 1999.

This will acknowledge the revised plans pertaining to the above noted development application which were circulated to Forestry Services on June 22, 1999. I have reviewed the circulated plans and advise that:

- I received a request from Ms. Sibylle von Knobloch of NAK Design Group, on behalf of the owner of the above noted properties, that the City consider the removal of five (5) City owned trees situated on the DeLisle Avenue and Heath Street City road allowances adjacent to the above noted development site.

- As required by City of Toronto Forestry Services, the applicant must provide payment to the City to cover the monetary value of the trees in question, the associated removal and replacement costs. The total cost will be provided to the applicant as soon as it becomes available. Forestry Services will schedule the removal of the trees in question once payment has been received and once permitted demolition and construction related activities in connection with the development as approved warrant the removal of the trees.

- The remaining six (6) City owned trees involved with the project which are situated on the City road allowances adjacent to the subject site must be protected at all times in accordance with the Specifications for Construction Near Trees contained in the Tree Details Section of the City of Toronto Streetscape manual and the plans prepared by Burka Architects Inc. and the plans prepared by NAK Design Group, all plans date stamped as received on June 22, 1999 by Urban Planning & Development Services and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development Services.

- I also received a request from Mr. Graham Baker, owner of the above noted properties, that the City consider the removal of four trees situated on private property.

As required under Section 331-13.B. of Municipal Code Chapter 331, Trees, Article III, a 'Notice' of application sign was posted on the subject property for the minimum 14 day posting period. No letters were received in response to the notice of application to remove the trees in question.

- Under the provisions of Section 331-14.A.(3), the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism is authorized to issue a permit for the removal of the subject trees situated on private property once Site Plan Approval has been obtained. Please advise Gary Le Blanc of my staff at 392-0494 once the Undertaking/Statement of Approval has been issued.

- The remaining trees on private property involved with this project must be protected at all times in accordance with the Specifications for Construction Near Trees - Private Property contained in the Tree Details Section of the City of Toronto Streetscape manual and the plans prepared by Burka Architects Inc. and the plans prepared by NAK Design Group, all plans date stamped as received on June 22, 1999 by Urban Planning and Development Services and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development Services.

- I advise that the plans prepared by Burka Architects Inc. and the plans prepared by NAK Design Group, all plans date stamped as received on June 22, 1999 by Urban Planning & Development Services and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development Services are acceptable provided that the above noted condition(s) are fulfilled.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

1560 Yonge St., 10 DeLisle Ave

Insert Table/Map No. 2

1560 Yonge St., 10 DeLisle Ave

Insert Table/Map No. 3

1560 Yonge St., 10 DeLisle Ave

Insert Table/Map No. 4

1560 Yonge St., 10 DeLisle Ave

Insert Table/Map No. 5

1560 Yonge St., 10 DeLisle Ave

Insert Table/Map No. 6

1560 Yonge St., 10 DeLisle Ave

Insert Table/Map No. 7

1560 Yonge St., 10 DeLisle Ave

Insert Table/Map No. 8

1560 Yonge St., 10 DeLisle Ave

Insert Table/Map No. 9

1560 Yonge St., 10 DeLisle Ave

Insert Table/Map No. 10

1560 Yonge St., 10 DeLisle Ave

Insert Table/Map No. 11

1560 Yonge St., 10 DeLisle Ave

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (July 14, 1999) from Ms. N. Jane Pepino, Q.C., Aird & Berlis, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. Stephen Diamond, McCarthy Tétrault;

- Ms. Donna Wakefield, Toronto, Ontario; and

- Mr. Eric Dowd, Toronto, Ontario.

Alteration of Massey Street in the Vicinity of

Adelaide Street West by Narrowing the Pavement

(Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a by-law in the form of the draft by-law be enacted, and that the necessary Bills be introduced in Council to give effect thereto.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 24 of Report No. 8 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Realignment of Northeast and Southwest Corners of the Intersection - Massey Street at Adelaide Street West (Trinity-Niagara)" which was adopted by City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on June 24, June 30, July 7 and July 14, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following Draft By-law from the City Solicitor:

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. 8, Clause No. 24

as adopted by Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999 and Toronto Community Council Report No. __, Clause __ as adopted by Council on ________.

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To

authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks,

pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Massey Street near Adelaide Street West by narrowing the pavement.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on _______________, 1999 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on _____, 1999 and it is appropriate to amend the by-law to permit the alteration;

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1. Former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", is amended:

(1) by inserting in Columns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively, of Schedule "B-3" (Pavement Narrowing) the following:

(Column 1

Side or Street)
(Column 2

Location)
(Column 3

Width)
(Column 4

From)
(Column 5

To)
(Column 6 Drawing No./Date)

Massey Street

Massey Street
west side

east side
from: 7.3m to: 4m-7.3m

from: 7.3m to: 4m-7.3m
Adelaide Street West

Adelaide Street West
15 m south

15m north
421F-5371

May 1999

421F-5371 May 1999

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 1999.

MayorCity Clerk

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following Clause 24 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 8, titled "Realignment of Northeast and Southwest Corners of the Intersection - Massey Street at Adelaide Street West (Trinity-Niagara), which was adopted, without amendment by City Council at its meeting on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999:

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the following report (May 12, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services be adopted; and

(2) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, in consultation with appropriate officials and the Ward Councillors, be requested to report on the planting inground trees at the street narrowings.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (May 12, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

This proposal is intended to provide sidewalk widenings in conjunction with planned pavement work and to physically deter motorists from inadvertently travelling against the opposing one-way traffic regulations on the north and south branches of Massey Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary work in the estimated amount of $30,000.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1) That in order to install a roadway narrowing on Massey Street in the vicinity of its intersection with Adelaide Street West, the following be approved:

(a) The narrowing of the pavement on the west side of Massey Street from Adelaide Street West to a point 15 metres south, from a width of 7.3 metres to a width varying from 4.0 metres to 7.3 metres, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5371 dated May, 1999;

(b) The narrowing of the pavement on the east side of Massey Street from Adelaide Street West to a point 15 metres north, from a width of 7.3 metres to a width varying from 4.0 metres to 7.3 metres, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5371 dated May, 1999; and

(2) That the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to implement the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that might be required.

Comments:

At the request of Trinity Niagara Councillor Joe Pantalone, on behalf of area residents, staff have reviewed a complaint about motorists travelling against the one-way traffic regulation on Massey Street to the north and south of Adelaide Street West and have examined options to deter such activity.

Massey Street from Queen Street West to King Street West has a pavement width of 7.3 metres and operates two-way from Queen Street West to the public lane first south, one-way southbound from this point to Adelaide Street West and one-way northbound from King Street West to Adelaide Street West. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the entire east side and is allowed for a maximum period of one hour from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday on the west side. "Stop" signs are posted for northbound and southbound traffic on Massey Street at Adelaide Street West. An asphalt overlay is scheduled on Adelaide Street West in 1999.

By taking advantage of the maintenance work planned for this year, the east side of Massey Street north of Adelaide Street West and the west side of Massey Street south of Adelaide Street West, within 15 metres of the corner, could be narrowed from a width of 7.3 metres to width varying from 7.3 metres to 4.0 metres, essentially as shown on the attached drawing (Drawing No. 421F-5371, dated May, 1999). This would enhance the existing one-way southbound and one-way northbound traffic operations on the north and south branches of Massey Street respectively and physically deter motorists from crossing Adelaide Street West and traveling the wrong way on the opposing branches of Massey Street. Staff will investigate whether additional tree planting would be feasible.

The installation of the road narrowing proposal would require extending the statutory 9 metre corner parking prohibition on the west side of Massey Street, north of Adelaide Street West to apply from Adelaide Street West to a point 15 metres north and result in the loss of one on-street parking space. The estimated cost of implementing this plan is about $30,000.00.

Under the provisions of the Municipal Act, notice of any proposed by-law(s) to designate highway alterations must be advertised at least once a week for four successive weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality. The narrowing of the pavement, as set out above, constitutes an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. This project is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Roads Projects.

Contact Name:

John Crocco

Senior Traffic Investigator

Telephone: 392-7771

Insert Table/Map No. 1

massey st - adelaide st. W.

Alteration of Musgrave Street in the Vicinity of

Victoria Park Avenue by Widening the Pavement

(East Toronto)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a by-law in the form of the draft by-law be enacted, and that the necessary Bills be introduced in Council to give effect thereto.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 45 of Report No. 9 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Installation of Traffic Control Signals and Realignment of Intersection - Intersection of Victoria Park Avenue at Musgrave Street (East Toronto)", which was adopted by City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on June 24, June 30, July 7 and July 14, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following Draft By-law from the City Solicitor:

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. 9, Clause No. 45

for Council consideration on July 6, 1999 and Toronto Community Council Report No. __, Clause __ as adopted by Council on ________.

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To

authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks,

pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Musgrave Street near Victoria Park Avenue by widening the pavement.

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

(1) by inserting in Columns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively, of Schedule "B-2" (Pavement Widening) the following:

(Column 1

Side or Street)
(Column 2

Location)
(Column 3

Width)
(Column 4

From)
(Column 5

To)
(Column 6 Drawing No./Date)

Musgrave Street from: 8.5m-10.5m to: 8.5m-12.5m Victoria Park Avenue 100m west 421F-5386

June 1999

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 1999.

MayorCity Clerk

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following Clause No. 45 of the Toronto Community Council Report No. 9 titled "Installation of Traffic Control Signals and Realignment of Intersection - Intersection of Victoria Park Avenue at Musgrave Street (East Toronto)", which was adopted, without amendment by City Council at its meeting held on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999:

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 18, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to obtain approval to construct development-related road modifications and install traffic control signals at the intersection of Victoria Park Avenue and Musgrave Street.

Funding Sources:

Funds to undertake the necessary road modifications and installation of the proposed traffic control signals are the responsibility of the developer (IPCF properties) of the adjacent site.

Recommendations:

It is recommended, subject to the receipt of funds from the developer:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Musgrave Street as described below:

"the widening of Musgrave Street from Victoria Park Avenue to a point approximately 100 metres westerly thereof from the existing width which varies from 8.5 metres to 10.5 metres, to a new width varying between 8.5 metres and 12.5 metres as shown schematically on the attached print of Drawing No. 42IF-5386, dated June, 1999";

(2) That coincident with the completion of the work identified in Recommendation No. 1 above;

(i) an eastbound left turn lane be designated on Musgrave Street, from Victoria Park Avenue to a point approximately 100 metres westerly;

(ii) a northbound left turn lane be designated on Victoria Park Avenue, from Musgrave Street to a point approximately 30.5 metres southerly;

(iii) a southbound left turn lane be designated on Victoria Park Avenue from Musgrave Street to a point approximately 30.5 metres northerly;

(3) That traffic control signals be installed at the intersection of Victoria Park Avenue and Musgrave Street;

(4) That the City Solicitor and City Clerk be requested to carry out the necessary statutory advertising commencing the week of June 22, 1999, such that the required public hearing of the draft by-law to give effect to the highway alteration referred to in Recommendation No.(1) above be considered at the July 15, 1999 meeting of Toronto Community Council; and,

(5) That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect thereto, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

Comments:

A rezoning and site plan application has been approved for a proposed Loblaws store at Premises No. 612 Victoria Park Avenue, located at the northwest quadrant of Victoria Park Avenue and Musgrave Street (Undertaking No. U397046 and Zoning By-Law No. 1997-0420). The installation of traffic control signals at the intersection of Gerrard Street East and Dengate Road has been approved as a condition of approval of this development in order to accommodate the traffic generated by this project.

The applicant has requested a second traffic control signal installation at the Victoria Park Avenue and Musgrave Street intersection in order to improve access to and egress from the site via Musgrave Street. The proposed installation is acceptable subject to the widening of Musgrave Street to provide an exclusive eastbound left-turn lane at the intersection. The pavement markings at the intersection must also be modified to provide exclusive northbound and southbound left-turn lanes on Victoria Park Avenue. In addition, the private road on the east side of Victoria Park Avenue, opposite Musgrave Street, must be realigned with Musgrave Street and the parking lay-by, currently on the north side must be relocated to the south side of the road. The applicant is required to obtain the consent of the owner of the private road for these modifications.

Funds for the design, construction, supervision and administration of this work will be received from the proponent (IPCF Properties) in the form of a letter of credit or certified cheques. Details of the work required to construct these road modifications are summarized below. Drawing No. 42IF - 5386, dated June, 1999. showing these modifications is appended to this report.

(a) removal and reconstruction of concrete curbs, gutter and sidewalks;

(b) construction of concrete road base and asphalt pavement;

(d) installation of underground traffic signal ducts, hand wells and pole bases;

(e) alteration of traffic control devices; and,

(f) utility relocations.

These modifications have been developed using current department standards. The Victoria Park Avenue and Musgrave Street widening/alterations constitute alterations to the public highways pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. The project is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule "A" of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects. The total cost of the work is to be borne by the developer. In order to receive approval of these works in a manner which coincides with the developers construction schedules, it is recommended that the requisite statutory advertising commence upon recommendation for approval by Toronto Community Council.

Conclusion:

As a result of a Loblaws development abutting Musgrave Street, a widening is proposed on Musgrave Street, west of Victoria Park Avenue to facilitate the provision of an eastbound left turn lane at Victoria Park Avenue. Furthermore, the private road on the east side of Victoria Park Avenue will be realigned with Musgrave Street and traffic control signals will be installed at this intersection. All costs will be borne by the developer.

Contact Name:

Peter Bartos

Manager, Traffic Operations

District 1 - East

397-4486

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Victoria Park at Musgrave St

Directions Report - 86 - 100 Bloor Street West

(University Theatre) - Further Official Plan

and Zoning By-law Amendments (Midtown)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the following motions be referred to the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for further discussions with the developer concerning the possible incorporation of an affordable housing component at 100 Bloor Street West:

Moved by Councillor Johnston:

'It is further recommended that the 54 residential units proposed to replace the commercial floor space be designated as seniors' units.'

Moved by Councillor Altobello:

'It is further recommended that the City Solicitor be requested to negotiate some affordable housing units under Section 37, within the 54 new units proposed to replace the commercial floor space, and report thereon to the Toronto Community Council.'")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) if the applicant provides the required loading spaces at grade and thereby eliminates the need to provide loading spaces below grade, the applicant increase the previously agreed contribution pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act by $192,000, bringing the total contribution to $1,000,000;

(2) Section 1(11)(a) of By-law No. 133-1999 be further modified to require the relocation of the Pearcy House portal to another location in the site, rather than restricting it solely to Bellair Street;

(3) the report (July 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by Recommendation Nos. (1) and (2) be adopted.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested:

(1) representatives from Gentra Inc. to meet with representatives of 102 Bloor Street West, the Bloor Yorkville B.I.A., the Greater Yorkville Residents' Association and the ABC Residents Association prior to the O.M.B. Hearing to be held on August 9, 1999, in order to investigate the ability to provide underground access for trucks and garbage removal;

(2) the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to review the issue of the value of the Section 37 agreement, if there is agreement among the parties for the provision of loading and garbage removal in favour of 102 Bloor Street West, and if 102 Bloor Street West relinquishes its claim on access to Critchley Lane;

(3) the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to consult the Bloor-Yorkville B.I.A. and the Greater Yorkville Residents' Association during the site plan review process.

The above recommendations and requests were carried on the following division of votes:

Yeas: Councillors McConnell, Adams, Bossons, Chow, Fotinos, Layton, Pantalone, Rae and Walker - 9

Nays: Councillors Jakobek, Korwin-Kuczynski and Silva - 3

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To recommend (i) conditional approval respecting further modifications to Official Plan Amendment No. 136 and Zoning By-law No. 133-1999 and (ii) direction to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council agree to support modifications to Official Plan Amendment No. 136 and site specific Zoning By-law No. 133-1999 for 86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West (University Theatre), requested by the owner, but only subject to the owner satisfying the conditions set out in Sections 4 and 5 of this report.

(2) That the City Solicitor and appropriate civic staff be directed to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board in respect of City Council's conditional approval of these modifications.

Background:

At its meeting of October 1, 1998, City Council adopted my September 1, 1998 Final Report respecting Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments for a Mixed Retail, Cinema and Restaurant Development at 86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West (University Theatre) and authorized the introduction of Bills in Council.

On March 4, 1999, City Council passed Official Plan Amendment No. 136 and Zoning By-law No. 133-1999 which were appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by a single appellant and which will be the subject of an Ontario Municipal Board hearing on August 9, 1999.

On July 8, 1999, the owner of the University Theatre site filed Application No. 197027 to effect modifications to the previously approved development.

The requested changes are required primarily to reflect the elimination of the approved nine screen theatre complex and to reduce the costs associated with the required below grade loading.

Specifically, the requested changes are as follows:

(i) the gross floor area previously intended for the cinema (7585 m2) is now proposed to be allocated to the residential component of the project;

(ii) the maximum number of dwelling units are proposed to increase from 160 to 214;

(iii) the off-site parking associated with the deleted theatre complex is proposed to be eliminated; and

(iv) the required loading spaces are proposed to be relocated from below grade to grade within the building.

The approved maximum total floor area and maximum building height will not be changed. There will be no change in the amount or type of public benefits to be provided by the developer and no change in the Heritage preservation plan for the facades of the former University Theatre and Pearcy House.

Comments:

1.0 Applicant

The revised application was submitted by Kim Kovar, Aird and Berlis, Barristers and Solicitors, BCE Place, Suite 1800, Box 754, 181 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario M5J 2T9, on behalf of Gentra Inc. and Tridel Builders Inc., on July 8, 1999.

2.0 Site

Nos. 86, 96, and 100 Bloor Street West are located on the north side of Bloor Street West, at Bellair Street. The combined site area is 3579.5 m2, with approximately 71 metres of frontage along Bloor Street West and Critchley Lane and approximately 50 metres of frontage along Bellair Street. (Key Map)

3.0 Approved Development

The approved mixed-use project, with a total density of 9.4 times coverage, accommodates:

(i) 6067m2 of non-residential gross floor area (or 1.7 times coverage) for retail uses;

(ii) 7585m2 of non-residential gross floor area (2.1 times coverage) for nine movie theatres, containing a total of 2090 seats;

(iii) 160 residential dwelling units (with a residential gross floor area of 20,015m2 or 5.6 times coverage); and

(iv) a four-level underground parking garage containing 395 parking spaces and three loading spaces, plus off-site parking for the theatre.

The height and massing of the approved building can be described in two parts. First, the non-residential component of the building, which contains the retail uses, nine cinemas and the main entrance to the residential tower, is 38 metres in height. The residential tower component, which is situated on the south-east end of the site, is 84.4 metres (or 25 storeys) tall at its main roof line. The upper floors of the tower have been stepped back to reduce the visual impact of the bulk of the building and to improve sunlight access to the north. At its most northerly point, the tower is set back 9.3 metres from the north property line. While the tower component of the building is relatively tall, it covers less than half of the site (Figures 1 and 2).

The density and height of the approved development generally reflect the surrounding context, and its massing addresses wind and sunlight access concerns.

4.0 Proposed Amendments

The proposed amendments, as specified in the above section entitled "Background", are few in number, but their effect on the massing of the building and on the appearance of the building's north elevation, adjacent to the Village of Yorkville Park, would be profound. An analysis of each of the proposed changes is set out below.

4.1 Land Use

The elimination of the nine screen theatre complex having a floor area of 7585 square metres and the addition of 54 dwelling units having the same floor area result in a significant reduction in the mass of the building because of the large volume of the deleted theatres. Specifically, the location, height and volume of the residential tower remain unchanged while the height of the commercial podium drops from 39 metres along Bloor Street and Critchley Lane to 21.5 and 12 metres respectively (Figures 3, 4 and 5).

This change in building mass would have the advantage of improving sunlight access onto the park and preserving views from the residential building to the west (102 Bloor Street West). However, the retail podium along Bloor Street is at its minimum acceptable height required to appropriately frame the street and aesthetically support the historic University Theatre facade. Unfortunately, the previously approved building envelope which forms part of By-law No. 133-1999 limits the maximum building mass and does not specify a minimum building mass or "build to line". Therefore, I recommend that the requested change in land use be approved on condition that a minimum "build to line" is included in the by-law. The applicant has no objection to this requirement.

Famous Players have written to express concern that, in their opinion, they were forced out of the proposed project (Appendix A). My only comment on this point would be to clarify that the previous approval did not require the inclusion of theatre uses and that the owners will continue to be required to preserve the historic University Theatre facade.

4.2 Elimination of Off-Site Parking

With the elimination of the cinemas, the requirement for off-site leased parking spaces is eliminated. I have no objection to this proposed modification.

4.3 Location of Loading Spaces

The approved loading spaces were required by by-law to be located in the underground garage. The garage was designed to be accessed directly from Bellair Street. The applicant now, in order to improve the economics of the project, proposes to locate 2 Type B and 1 Type G loading spaces at grade, inside the building. Access to the loading spaces and underground garage would be off of Critchley Lane (Figure 6).

The applicant has tried to reduce the potential negative impact of the loading facility on the adjacent Village of Yorkville Park by:

(i) separating the loading and vehicular accesses so as to reduce the size of the opening in the building's rear elevation;

(ii) limiting the height and width of the loading access to a single truck width ( 7m wide by 4m high). The interior of the loading area widens sufficiently to accommodate the three required loading spaces;

(iii) aligning the loading access with a stand of birch trees in the adjacent Village of Yorkville Park, thereby partially screening the access from view from Cumberland Street.

Notwithstanding these precautions, staff were not convinced that the negative impacts of the loading facility could be mitigated. Therefore, staff engaged the applicant in the exploration of further options and agreed to support two access options, subject to the following conditions:

(i) that vehicular access, loading and any layby from Critchley Lane occur within 30 metres of the eastern property line at Bellair Street;

(ii) that access off Bellair Street would only be permitted if, as in the approved development, parking and loading were accommodated below grade. The access would be required to be located within 22 metres of the northern property line at Critchley Lane through an opening no greater than 10 metres in width;

(iii) that, if loading is provided at grade, the owner agree to provide knock-out panels at the P1 parking level for a potential connection to 102 Bloor Street West; and

(iv) that, if loading is provided at grade, the owner agree to provide easements through the P1 parking level in favour of the residents of 102 Bloor Street West.

These conditions would permit:

(i) a continuous retail frontage along Bellair Street;

(ii) a continuous retail frontage along approximately two thirds of Critchley Lane;

(iii) the potential to close two thirds of the length of Critchley Lane adjacent to this property should alternative access for 102 Bloor Street West be secured as discussed above or otherwise; and

(iv) the construction of the residential lobby at the corner of Critchley Lane and Bellair Street.

The design of the vehicular access and loading facility will be worked out in the context of the site plan approval process. It is hoped that the loading facilities will be accommodated deep in the interior of the building and not be visible from the Lane. This would be made possible through the use of truck turn table(s). The applicant has agreed to such measures in order to eliminate the cost of providing below grade loading.

In consultation with staff of Works and Emergency Services, and with the agreement of the applicant, the wording of the site specific by-law loading clause will be amended to require the loading spaces "with generally level surfaces and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion".

4.4 Proposed Layby

When Toronto Community Council considered my Final Report, it heard from representatives of the local business community as well as area residents requesting that the project be altered to accommodate a vehicular layby for residents. The applicant and my staff considered this request but could not comply because of the physical constraints imposed by the theatres. With the theatres removed, the applicant has proposed a combined layby and vehicular access off of Critchley Lane adjacent to the reconfigured residential lobby (Figure 6). The inclusion of the layby is acceptable to me. However, the design of the combined access and layby will change somewhat as a result of my requirement to locate all vehicular and loading access within 30 metres of the Bellair property line.

5.0 Other Matters

5.1 Closing the west portion of Critchley Lane

Vehicular and loading access to 102 Bloor Street West is currently from Bellair Street via Critchley Lane, while access to 110 Bloor Street West is via a private driveway to Cumberland Street on land leased from the City of Toronto. Subject to the agreement of the owners of 110 Bloor Street West and the upgrading of the private driveway, it is possible to reorient vehicular access for 102 Bloor Street thereby permitting the closure of a substantial portion of Critchley Lane. Likewise, if all vehicular access for 102 Bloor Street West can be provided by 86 to 100 Bloor Street West, then a significant portion of the Lane can be closed. The applicant does not object to the closure of the Lane adjacent to their property, west of their vehicular access.

I recommend that the applicant's commitment to this closure be secured as a condition of approval.

Conclusions:

The applicant is seeking further modifications to Official Plan Amendment No. 136 and Zoning By-law No. 133-1999 to be considered by the Ontario Municipal Board on August 9, 1999. While the proposed changes are few in number, their effect on the massing and servicing of the building is significant. Therefore, I recommend that the proposed modifications to Application No. 197027 be supported, subject to the owner satisfying the conditions set out in Sections 4 and 5 of this report, and that the City Solicitor and appropriate civic staff be directed to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board in support of City Council's conditional approval.

Staff Contact:

Raymond David

Manager, North Section

Phone: 416-392-7188

Fax: 416-392-1330

E-mail: rdavid@toronto.ca

--------

Appendix A

Comments

1. Famous Players, dated June 24, 1999.

I am writing to you on a matter of some urgency and to solicit your assistance.

As you and members of Council may know, we have been involved as a major prospective tenant in the redevelopment project at 86-100 Bloor Street West with the owners of the lands, Brookfield Developments Limited and Gentra Inc. The project received the approval of your Council in March of this year at a density of 9.4 f.s.i., and included the redevelopment of the historic University Theatre in a mixed-use density residential complex.

As you may know, Famous Players built and operated the original University Theatre at 100 Bloor Street West from 1949 until 1986, when the lease expired and we ceased to occupy it. When we were approached in early 1996 by Brookfield Developments to be part of the redevelopment of the theatre site, we were very excited and quickly agreed to become a part of the revival and redevelopment of this historic landmark in midtown Toronto. We wanted to restore and breathe new life into a property that had tragically sat vacant, but not forgotten, for the intervening 12 years.

Since March 1996, we have been an active part of the redevelopment project with Brookfield, and have helped design and recreate the theatre portion of the project. We have put much time and effort into rethinking and incorporating the historic landmark parts of the old theatre so that they would blend seamlessly with a state-of-the-art 21^st century entertainment complex. We hoped it would be a welcome return of a significant element that would invigorate and enliven Toronto's version of 5^th Avenue. Your Council and staff responded with equal enthusiasm and support, and awarded the developers of the project a 3.4x density bonus for incorporating this historic element into their project.

You can imagine our complete shock and dismay when on May 29^th of this year, after working on this project for two years under an agreement to lease with the owners (that had to be extended twice by both sides because of the timing of municipal approvals) that the owners of the project abruptly advised us that they were dropping the theatres from the redevelopment project. The reasons given to us for doing so make no sense at all, but we have not succeeded in the intervening two weeks in persuading them to change their minds. At the same time, we understand that they intend to try to keep the density bonus of 3.4 f.s.i. and to replace the theatres 2.1 f.s.i. density with additional residential condominium units.

We have legal remedies available to us, and we are studying them at the present time. However, the matter of greater public importance is the fact that the opportunity to redevelop and restore a historic landmark in Toronto may be lost. We intend to try to use reasoned arguments and friendly persuasion with Brookfield and Gentra to persuade them to return to the scheme approved by Council. We hope and ask, however, for your support and your greater powers of persuasion as the City fathers who hold the keys to development approvals and who also have the greater public interest at heart, to assist us in persuading the developer to return to a project that will restore a long lost jewel into the crown of the City of Toronto for the benefits of the residents and the magnificence of the City of Toronto for many years to come.

We intend to appear before you when this matter comes forward again before any committee of Council, and would be pleased to provide you with any additional information that you may require in this matter.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

86, 96 and 100 Bloor St West

Insert Table/Map No. 2

86, 96 and 100 Bloor St West

Insert Table/Map No. 3

86, 96 and 100 Bloor St West

Insert Table/Map No. 4

86, 96 and 100 Bloor St West

Insert Table/Map No. 5

86, 96 and 100 Bloor St West

Insert Table/Map No. 6

86, 96 and 100 Bloor St West

Insert Table/Map No. 7

86, 96 and 100 Bloor St West

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications:

- (July 2, 1999) from Mr. Brian Parker, Smith Lyons, obo Famous Players Inc.;

- (Undated) from Mr. Perry Dellio, Perrys Colonnade;

- Clause No. 26 Contained in Report No. 6 of the Toronto Community Council, Headed "86 and 100 Bloor Street West (University Theatre) - Private Developer Percent for Public Art Plan (Midtown)"; which was adopted, without amendment, by the Council of the City of Toronto at its Meeting Held on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999;

- Clause No. 1 Contained in Report No. 4 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Draft By-laws - Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning - 86 and 100 Bloor Street West (Midtown)"; which was adopted, without amendment, by the Council of the City of Toronto at its Meeting Held on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999;

- (July 13, 1999) from Ms. Lisa McGee, General Manager, Bloor Yorkville BIA; and

- (June 30, 1999) from Mr. Peter Doering, Vice President, Asset Management, Gentra Inc.

--------

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. John S. Bailey, Famous Players;

- Mr. Rodney W.J. Seyffert, Smith Lyons;

- Mr. Budd Sugarman, Yorkville B.I.A.;

- Mr. Gordon Dreger, L & A Group of Companies;

- Ms. Lisa McGee, Bloor-Yorkville B.I.A.; and

- Ms. Kim Kovar, Aird & Berlis.

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, following communications:

(i) (July 23, 1999) from the Vice President, L & A Group of Companies, advising that the L & A Group of Companies will be filing an application for an injunction against Gentra Inc., Brookfield Development Corporation and Tridel Corporation, as it pertains to a revised development proposal respecting the University Theatre site at 86-100 Bloor Street West; and

(ii) (July 27, 1999) from the Vice President, Asset Management, Gentra Inc., disputing the application for an injunction which has been filed by L & A Group of Companies against Gentra Inc.)

Variance from Chapter 297, Signs,

of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code

- 235 Queens Quay (Downtown)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 30, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit two roof signs and three fascia signs at 235 Queens Quay West, the York Quay Centre, at Harbourfront Centre.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Council approve Application No. 999052 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated double sided roof sign, two illuminated fascia signs, one message centre fascia sign and one message centre roof sign, for identification purposes, subject to the following conditions:

(i) all signs must receive, from the Committee of Adjustment, the necessary variances from the maximum height provisions of By-law 289-93;

(ii) the roof sign, including the changeable message board, on the roof of the two-storey addition proposed for the central part of the existing building must:

- not exceed:

- 125.00 square metres in area, per side,

- 7.0 metres in height above the roof, and

- 30.50 metres in length; and

- be located within the 55.40 square metre location envelope shown on Figure 4;

(iii) the fascia sign on the south face of the building and existing structure must not exceed:

- 31.50 square metres in area,

- 2.10 metres in height, and

- 15.00 metres in length;

(iv) the changeable message board roof sign on the southern facade on the roof of the building and existing structure must not exceed:

- 12.75 square metres in area,

- 1.25 metres in height above the roof, and

- 12.75 metres in length;

(v) the fascia sign on the north face of the building must not exceed:

- 31.50 square metres in area,

- 2.10 metres in height,

- 15.00 metres in length, and

- 1.0 metre in height above the parapet of the existing building; and

(vi) the changeable message board fascia sign on the north face of the building must not exceed:

- 12.75 square metres in area,

- 0.85 metres in height, and

- 12.75 metres in length.

(2) Urban Planning and Development Services staff work with other appropriate City staff and Harbourfront Corporation to create comprehensive signage guidelines for Harbourfront.

(3) Harbourfront Centre be required to submit the final design of the roof and fascia signs for York Quay Centre to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for final approval and that the final design not be reported to Council again, unless additional variances are required.

Comments:

1. Background

Harbourfront is one of Toronto's most important and active cultural and entertainment attractions. Harbourfront Centre offices are currently located at 410 Queens Quay West, in a building slated for demolition. In order to replace its offices and maintain and improve its ability to provide its services, Harbourfront Centre plans to add two storeys to the main part of the York Quay Centre building, the most active part of Harbourfront. Corporate donations, including selling the naming rights to the renovated and expanded York Quay Centre, are essential to fund ongoing Harbourfront programmes as all Federal funding ends in 2000. Approval of signage is necessary so that Harbourfront Centre can sell the naming rights and attract more visitors to the Centre.

2. The Application

York Quay Centre is located on the south side of Queens Quay West, west of York Street. The applicant is proposing signs in three areas:

- a double sided illuminated sign containing a changeable message centre on the roof of the two-storey addition planned for the central portion of the existing York Quay Centre building. It would replace a larger roof sign which has recently been removed.

- an illuminated fascia sign and a changeable message centre on the south side of the building and open structure which faces the Waterfront Promenade and Toronto Bay.

- an illuminated fascia sign and a changeable message centre, the top of which projects above the top of the parapet wall, on the Queens Quay frontage, to replace the existing fascia sign painted on the building's exterior.

Illustrations are appended to this report.

3. Variances from the Sign By-law and the Zoning By-law

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code (the Sign By-law) in the following ways:

(1) roof signs are not permitted (297-9.C. and 297-11.B.1.) ,

(2) fascia signs are not permitted (297-9.C), and

(3) the fascia sign proposed for the north side of the building which projects above the top of the parapet would not meet the definition of "fascia sign" because it would not be wholly mounted against the wall.

The roof signs on the east and west elevation exceed the maximum height provisions of the Harbourfront Zoning By-law 289-93.

4. Review of Application

The proposed signage is an important part of the improvement of Harbourfront's facilities and will enhance the profile and visibility of Harbourfront as a major cultural and entertainment attraction for Toronto residents and visitors.

The property is zoned 'G1 - Park' by the Harbourfront Zoning By-law. The Municipal Code has restrictive signage provisions for Parks districts in order to protect their primary function as places for use by the public for recreational purposes in a quiet or natural setting. Harbourfront Centre is more an entertainment and cultural centre than a park, despite its 'G1' zoning. Signs attracting people to the Centre are consistent with its role as a busy, active and exciting place. In addition, the York Quay Centre, where the signs are proposed, is also far enough removed from residential buildings that the signs' presence is not obtrusive or harmful to those residential uses.

Signs at this site are further restricted by the Sign By-law prohibition on roof signs south of the Gardiner Expressway. The proposed roof sign is directed at vehicular and pedestrian traffic on Queens Quay West, not the Gardiner Expressway.

The proposal includes signs on the north and south elevation of York Quay Centre. The proposal establishes a length and height and maximum area sign envelope on the roof of the two-storey addition and limits signage to 67% of the envelope. This will permit some flexibility in the final sign design. Harbourfront Centre is seeking approval of the location and sizes of the signs, so that prospective corporate sponsors know what level of exposure they will get in return for the naming rights to the building.

The attached drawings do not represent the final design of the proposed signs since that will be developed by Harbourfront and their naming sponsor. The signs will be required to fit into the size envelopes described by the variance conditions. Harbourfront Centre has agreed that final approval of the actual signs remains with Urban Planning and Development Services staff.

In my view, the requested variances from the Sign By-law are appropriate in this location, subject to the conditions I have set out. They are consistent with the City's overall objectives for the Harbourfront area and are worthy of Council's support.

5. Zoning Height Variance

The review of the application has determined that the roof sign proposed for the roof of the two-storey addition exceeds the maximum height permitted by the Zoning By-law for the Harbourfront area. A variance from the maximum height of 15.0 metres is required from the Committee of Adjustment for this extra height. The highest point of the sign envelope would be 7.0 metres higher. While the Zoning By-law variance is not part of this application, I would advise the following:

(a) The roof sign is part of the entertainment and cultural function of the York Quay Centre. There is no impact on neighbouring park or residential functions and amenities or on the views of the lake from the Gardiner Expressway, since the highest possible part of the signs is on the roof of a four-storey building and is oriented to vehicular and pedestrian traffic on the ground, not the Gardiner Expressway.

(b) Signage is important to the Harbourfront area to ensure that places are clearly identified and easy to find. I am, therefore, also recommending that staff of Urban Planning and Development Services work with Harbourfront Centre and appropriate City staff to develop comprehensive signage guidelines for the area. This should reduce and prevent "sign clutter" along the waterfront.

(c) The signs proposed will identify the York Quay Centre, provide information about Harbourfront events and activities only and will contain no third party advertising.

It must be emphasized that Harbourfront is a unique area on the waterfront and the Gardiner Expressway Corridor. The York Quay Centre, in particular, is the centre of the most intensive activity and requires signage for its identification and for the orientation of visitors in a way which other uses do not. Approval of the proposed signs will, therefore, not set a precedent.

Conclusions:

Harbourfront Centre is a significant cultural and entertainment facility in Toronto which residents and visitors often cannot find. The appropriate signage proposed will distinguish the York Quay Centre from the other attractions and activities along the waterfront and should help to improve its visibility, access and attendance. Approval of the proposed signage will enable Harbourfront to conduct its corporate fundraising, particularly selling the naming rights for the expanded and renovated York Quay Centre.

Contact Name:

Ian Cooper

Telephone: (416) 392-7572

Fax: (416) 392-1330

E-Mail: icooper@toronto.ca

--------

Councillor Chow declared an interest in the foregoing matter that her stepdaughter acts as a summer camp director at the subject site.

Councillor Layton declared an interest in the foregoing matter that his daughter acts as a summer camp director at the subject site.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

235 Queens Quay

Insert Table/Map No. 2

235 Queens Quay

Insert Table/Map No. 3

235 Queens Quay

Insert Table/Map No. 4

235 Queens Quay

Insert Table/Map No. 5

235 Queens Quay

(Councillor Chow, at the meeting of Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, declared her interest in the foregoing Clause, in that her stepdaughter acts as a summer camp director at the subject site.)

(Councillor Layton, at the meeting of Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause that his daughter acts as a summer camp director at the subject site.)

Removal of City-owned Tree - 36 Herbert Avenue

(East Toronto)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the request for removal of the City-owned tree at 36 Herbert Street be denied.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 23, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application has been received from Mr. Derek Chibba, 36 Herbert Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N2, for City Council to consider the removal of one City-owned tree located at the above noted address. The applicant advises that the tree blocks the sight-line from the street to his house, cuts off the sunlight to the house and precludes his opportunity to apply for front yard parking. The applicant has indicated that he would be happy to have another tree planted on the boulevard instead of this tree.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the request for removal of this City-owned tree be denied.

Comments:

The tree in question is a thirty-four centimetre diameter White Spruce in good condition, valued at $1,813.42 and does not qualify for removal at this time. The cost to remove the tree is $441.30 and the cost to plant a replacement tree is $565.15, for a total of $2,819.87. If Council should approve tree removal contrary to the recommendation in this report, it should be conditional on the applicant paying all costs involved, as noted above.

With respect to the applicant's concerns about the tree blocking the sunlight and obscuring the house, a recent inspection from a Forestry Inspector found that the tree was only slightly obstructing the walkway to the house and was not obstructing any sight-line. It was also observed that there is a fire hydrant in front of the house which would make it difficult to accommodate front yard parking.

Conclusion:

The tree is in a healthy and vigorous state of growth and does not require removal at this time. Since it would be necessary to remove a healthy tree, which does not qualify for removal at this time, this Department is opposed to removal of this tree. Furthermore, removal of trees for this purpose would set an undesirable precedent resulting in thousands of trees being removed City wide.

Contact:

Vicky Jeffery

Telephone: 392-7390

Removal of City-owned Tree - 41 Wayland Avenue

(East Toronto)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the request for removal of the City-owned tree at 41 Wayland Avenue be denied.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 22, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

A request to remove one City-owned tree at 41 Wayland Avenue due to its exposed surface roots and damage to the property's drains has been filed by the owner, Ms. Pamela Ryan of 41 Wayland Avenue, Toronto, Ontario.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the request for removal of this City-owned tree be denied.

Comments:

The tree in question is a thirty-nine centimetre diameter Norway Maple in fair condition, valued at $1,219.61 and does not qualify for removal at this time. The costs to remove the tree is $346.38 and the cost to plant a replacement tree is $565.15, for a total of $2,131.14. If Council should approve tree removal contrary to the recommendation in this report, it should be conditional on the applicant paying all costs involved, as noted above for a total of $2,131.14.

With respect to the applicant's concerns about the tree affecting her drains, Urban Forestry Services advised that Ms. Ryan that tree roots generally grow within the first twenty-four inches of soil where they are best able to meet their needs for oxygen, water and nutrients. Any soil area deeper than twenty-four inches becomes anaerobic and the roots can not meet their needs. In circumstances where a broken or cracked drain has become leaky, tree roots will grow deeper than normal as they are attracted to the water nutrients and oxygen available from the broken drains. It is not the tree that breaks the drains, it is a broken or cracked drain which attracts the roots.

Conclusion:

The Norway Maple contributes to the enhancement of the community. Since it would be necessary to remove a healthy tree which does not qualify for removal, this Department is opposed to removal of this tree. Furthermore, removal of trees for this purpose would set an undesirable precedent resulting in thousands of trees being removed City wide.

Contact:

Vicky Jeffery

Telephone: 392-7390

Adjustments to the Parking Regulations -

Cumberland Street from Avenue Road to

Bellair Street (Midtown)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Toronto Community Council for further consideration.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 25, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To facilitate access to the lane servicing the rear of Premises No. 110 Bloor Street West by the introduction of a "No Stopping Anytime" zone.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of the signage to establish this "No Stopping Anytime" zone in the estimated amount of $200.00 are available under the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That stopping be prohibited at anytime on the north side of Cumberland Street from the pedestrian crossover at Old York Lane to a point 18.5 m west thereof; and

(2) That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect thereto including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

Comments:

At the request of the Bloor -Yorkville B.I.A. and in consultation with the Ward Councillors John Adams and Ila Bossons, staff reviewed the existing parking regulations on Cumberland Street with the intention of improving the access from the rear of Premises No. 110 Bloor Street West.

Cumberland Street between Avenue Road and Bellair Avenue operates one-way eastbound on a 6.3 m wide pavement. Currently, stopping is prohibited at anytime on the north side of Cumberland Street between Avenue Road and a point 60.0 m east thereof and from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., Monday to Friday, from this point to a point 51 m further east. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the north side from a point 111 m east of Avenue Road to Bellair Street. There is a pedestrian crossover located 7.7 m east of the lane servicing the rear of Premises No. 110 Bloor Street West (or Premises No. 145 Cumberland Street). Observations have confirmed that vehicles tend to load and/or illegally park on the north side of the street.

When vehicles, particularly trucks, are stopped to load or illegally park in the area across from the subject lane it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, for vehicles, especially trucks, to enter or exit this laneway or the ramp leading to an underground garage abutting the laneway. To keep the area on the north side directly opposite this laneway and ramp clear of obstructing vehicles, a "No Stopping Anytime" regulation should be introduced from the pedestrian crossover to a point 18.5 m west thereof. This 18.5 m distance would include the statutory "No Stopping Anytime, 9 m to crosswalk" prohibition, then 3.5 m from this point to a ramp, the 2.5 m width of the ramp and an additional 3.5 m to cover the abutting ramp on the south side. This extension should not affect loading opportunities on the south side of the street as any loading in the above-mentioned area would be illegal because of the existing "No Stopping Anytime" prohibition within 9.0 m of the pedestrian crossover and the existing driveway ramps on the south side. The current "No Parking Anytime" prohibition sign located approximately 3 m west of the pedestrian crossover will be replaced with a "No Stopping 9 m of the pedestrian crossover" sign.

Contact Name:

Michael J. Harris

Supervisor Traffic Engineering

Telephone: 392-7711

Proposed Closing of the Remnant Portion of

the Public Lane crossing Harris Road (Davenport)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 22, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To obtain City Council authority for the stopping-up and closing of a remnant portion of the public lane crossing the private road "Harris Road".

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N\A

Recommendations:

Subject to any additional terms and conditions including compensation and costs, that may be determined by City Council in connection with the conveyance of the subject lane, as set out in the report to Toronto Community Council from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

(1) That the remnant portion of the public lane crossing Harris Road, shown hatched on the attached Plan SYE2893, be stopped-up and closed; and

(2) That the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that might be required, and give notice to the public.

Comments:

Works and Emergency Services has received and evaluated a request from Blake, Cassels and Graydon on behalf of 1260200 Ontario Inc., to stop up and close the remnant portion of the public lane crossing the private road "Harris Road", shown hatched on the attached Plan SYE2893. The closing is required by the applicant in order to incorporate this land into the development site. The portions of the public lane to the east and west of the subject lands were previously closed by by-law. I have assessed the proposal and consider it feasible.

A separate report on the terms and conditions of the sale of these lands will be submitted to the Toronto Community Council by the Commissioner of Corporate Services.

This undertaking is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule "A" of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.

Contact Name:

Laurie Robertson

Project Technician - Street and Lane Closings

Telephone: 392-7711

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Harris Road

Extension of Permit Parking Hours on

Waverley Road, between Kewbeach Avenue

and Kingston Road (East Toronto)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 29, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on the extension of permit parking hours on Waverley Road, between Kewbeach Avenue and Kingston Road, from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) the permit parking hours of operation on Waverley Road, between Kewbeach Avenue and Kingston Road, be extended from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week;

(2) Schedule V of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to incorporate Waverley Road, between Kewbeach Avenue and Kingston Road; and

(3) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction of all necessary bills.

Background:

Toronto Community Council at its meeting of April 28, 1999, had before it our report (April 13, 1999), respecting Extension of Permit Parking Hours on Waverley Road, between Kewbeach Avenue and Kingston Road.

The Toronto Community Council deferred consideration of the report and requested that a poll in the neighbourhood be undertaken.

Comments:

Ballots were mailed out on May 12, 1999, with the last date for filling a response being June 11, 1999. The results of the poll are as follows:

Polling Summary

Ballots cast opposed 26 in favour 58	84
No response	102
Returned by post office	1
Total ballots issued	197

Conclusions:

The majority of the ballots returned are in favour of extending the permit parking hours on Waverley Road, between Kewbeach Avenue and Kingston Road, from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week. Given that the extension of permit parking hours is an administrative procedure, it is recommended that the hours be amended to indicate 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Contact Name:

Lisa Forte

Telephone: 392-1801

Extension of Permit Parking Hours on

Northcote Avenue, between Queen Street

West and Afton Avenue (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 29, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on the extension of permit parking hours on Northcote Avenue, between Queen Street West and Afton Avenue, from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) the permit parking hours of operation on Northcote Avenue, between Queen Street West and Afton Avenue, be extended from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week;

(2) Schedule P of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to incorporate Northcote Avenue, between Queen Street West and Afton Avenue; and

(3) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction of all necessary bills.

Background:

A request was received from Councillor Joe Pantalone and Councillor Mario Silva to have the permit parking hours extended on Northcote Avenue, between Queen Street West and Afton Avenue, from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Comments:

Northcote Avenue, between Queen Street West and Afton Avenue, is authorized for permit parking on an area basis within permit parking area 3K, and the hours of operation are 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

The extension of permit parking hours on Northcote Avenue, between Queen Street West and Afton Avenue, is an administrative procedure.

Conclusions:

Given that the extension of permit parking hours on Northcote Avenue, between Queen Street West and Afton Avenue, is an administrative procedure, it is recommended that the hours be amended to indicate 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Contact Name:

Lisa Forte

Telephone: 392-1801

Public Art Plan - Options for Homes -

39 Parliament Street, 80 Mill Street

(Gooderham and Worts) (Don River)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to inform Toronto Community Council of the proposed Options for Homes Private Developer Percent for Public Art Plan and to seek approval of the recommendations made by the Public Art Commission concerning this plan.

Source of Funds:

All costs associated with this Private Developer Percent for Public Art Plan are the responsibility of the owners of Nos. 39 Parliament Street and 80 Mill Street.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Toronto Community Council approve the following recommendations from the City of Toronto Public Art Commission:

(1) that upon determination of the actual budget, the owners re-consider the budget allocations and direct more funds to the more publicly accessible and highly prominent site of 39 Parliament Street;

(2) that the competition brief be provided to the Public Art Commission for comment prior to distribution to the artists; and

(3) that the Toronto Community Council approve the proposed Private Developer Percent for Public Art Plan, subject to the incorporation of the above recommendations from the Public Art Commission.

Background:

In April 1994, the former City of Toronto Council approved the Gooderham and Worts District Public Art Plan, which was a requirement of a Section 37 agreement for these lands. Subsequently, in 1997, Gooderham and Worts provided the City with a revised District Public Art Plan that addressed the buildings and lands adjacent to the Gooderham and Worts Distillery complex. This District Public Art Plan provides a framework for conceptualizing, planning, commissioning and implementing public art throughout the district as the overall development progresses over the years. This framework elaborates on the public art principles, the site context, the administrative procedures and available budgets.

The Gooderham and Worts development is a national historic site that is currently divided into a number of phases in the anticipated build-out of the property. It is a mixed-use development of approximately 2.2 million square feet that will include residential, retail, cultural, and light industrial facilities. Development of the site began in 1997 with the construction of affordable housing on the site. Two housing projects have been implemented, and at present a third development proposal to be located at 80 Mill Street is being reviewed by City Staff.

At the meeting of the Public Art Commission on May 27,1999, Options for Homes submitted its Public Art Plan and was represented by the Haley Group and David Dennis of Gooderham and Worts. The first locations that will include public art are being developed by Options for Homes at 39 Parliament Street and 80 Mill Street in the Gooderham and Worts complex. Following the presentation, the Public Art Commission made the recommendations as included in this report. This Public Art Plan, as prepared and presented by Options for Homes, is attached to this report.

Discussion:

Proposed sites for public art projects:

39 Parliament Street is a residential building that occupies the southwest corner of the Gooderham and Worts site. The owner would like the design of the entrance canopy to be developed by an artist.

80 Mill Street is a residential building that occupies the northeast corner of the Gooderham and Worts site. There will be a small open space which is closed to the general public, but is visible from Mill Street. It will incorporate a large outdoor shade canopy over past of the garden. The owner is interested in having the design of the fencing and the large shade canopy be developed by an artist.

Estimated public art budget:

At this stage, Options for Homes is estimating that the budget to be applied to both sites will be approximately $175,000. This is a preliminary estimate and will be confirmed by the value of the building permit upon issuance by the City.

Art selection method:

The owner is proposing one limited competition to address the public art components of both sites from the following list of artists: Jane Buyers; Carlo Cesta; Mark Gomes and Susan Schelle; Brian Groombridge; John McKinnon; David Merritt; Bernie Miller; Kim Moody; Jan Poldaas; and Judith Schwarz. Five artists will be short-listed from this selection.

A jury of five will select the artist. The Owner and District Architects will be represented by Ron Bolt, for Options for Homes and David Dennis for the Gooderham and Worts District. The following representatives with extensive knowledge in the visual arts and/or public art field are under consideration for participation on the jury. Three of the following will be invited by the owner: David Hylinski (artist); Kim Kozzi (artist); Marc Mayer, Director of the Power Plant; Christina Ritchie (curator - Art Gallery of Ontario); Virginia Wright (curator - Royal Ontario Museum); and Shirley Yanover (artist).

Public Relations Program:

Gooderham and Worts and Options for Home will undertake to promote the appointment of the artists and the installation of the public art component through media releases and a public unveiling of the installations. It is hoped that as the public art program continues to be developed that a brochure or a catalogue will eventually be produced that will document all of the public art in the Gooderham and Worts complex.

Conclusions:

This Public Art Plan conforms with the City's guidelines, as published by Urban Planning and Development Services in the Development Approval Manual. This proposed plan also conforms to the Gooderham and Worts District Public Art Plan. Subject to the recommendations, this plan was unanimously supported by the Public Art Commission.

I am in full support of the recommendations from the Public Art Commission and look forward to the results of this Private Developer Percent for Public Art Plan.

Contact Name:

Jane Perdue

Public Art Co-ordinator, Urban Design

Tel: 416-392-1304

Fax: 416-392-1744

Email: jperdu@toronto.ca

--------

(A copy of a report dated May, 1999 - Options for Homes Public Art Program at Gooderham and Worts Site and Appendix C, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on July 15, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk)

Insert Table/Map No. 1

39 Parliament St & 80 Mill St

Insert Table/Map No. 2

39 Parliament St & 80 Mill St

Insert Table/Map No. 3

39 Parliament St & 80 Mill St

Public Art Plan - CityPlace Public

Art Plan - Railway Lands Central and West

(Downtown)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to inform the Toronto Community Council of the proposed CityPlace Public Art Plan and to seek approval of the recommendations made by the Public Art Commission concerning this plan.

Source of Funds

All costs associated with the Private Developer Percent Public Art Plan are the responsibility of the owners of the CityPlace project.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Toronto Community Council approve the following recommendation from the City of Toronto Public Art Commission:

(1) that the Toronto Community Council approve the proposed CityPlace Private Developer Percent for the CityPlace Public Art Plan.

Background:

At its meeting of June 9, 1999, City Council adopted Clause No. 2 contained in the report No. 8 of the Toronto Community Council approving the City's Urban Design Guidelines and the District Public Art Plan for the Railway Lands Central and West. This District Public Art Plan was prepared by the City in accordance with the Ontario Municipal Board September 1994 decision pertaining to the Railway Lands Central and West Part II Plans. The purpose of this type of District Plan is to ensure that the public art in the Railway Lands Central and West is provided in a coordinated manner over the years of development. As the District Plan outlines, the land owner will be expected to prepare and submit for approval by the Toronto Public Art Commission and City Council a public art plan, prior to or in conjunction with its first site plan application for its landholding. A recent Site Plan Approval and Rezoning (to remove the "H" designation) application by the owners (Concord Adex) triggered the preparation of the CityPlace Public Art Plan.

At the April 15, 1999 meeting of the Public Art Commission, a preliminary presentation of the CityPlace Public Art Plan by Karen Mills, public art consultant and Mark Hewitt, Vice President of Development of Concord Adex was made. Following subsequent meetings with Planning staff, Concord Adex has submitted the attached plan to City for approval.

It should be noted that over the years, as each development site triggers a public art is requirement (for either Concord Adex lands or City-owned lands), Concord Adex will develop a detailed program for review by the City of Toronto including the proposed competition type, jury composition, and selection methodology.

Comments

The CityPlace Public Art Plan, as presented by the owner, is attached to this report. A brief synopsis is as follows:

CityPlace comprises a 44 acre development site located in downtown Toronto running from the SkyDome on the east to Bathurst Street and north from Lakeshore Boulevard generally to the rail corridor. CityPlace is divided by Spadina Avenue into CityPlace Central (The area adjacent to the SkyDome) and CityPlace West (the area west of Spadina Avenue). There is one development block (block 28) that is west of Spadina, but considered to be part of CityPlace Central.

This site was purchased by what is now Concord Adex Developments Corporation from Canada Lands Company in 1997. As part of that acquisition, Concord Adex was required to assume or enter into a series of municipal agreements with the City of Toronto which included the preparation of this Public Art Plan.

The CityPlace Public Art Plan provides a framework for the public art programs to be implemented during the course of the phased CityPlace development programs. It will be a comprehensive, yet flexible working document.

The CityPlace Public Art Plan outlines the following:

- a general description of the guidelines for the Public Art Plan;

- an outline of objectives for the public art;

- identification of priorities for public art and potential site opportunities;

- a description of the proposed selection method to identify artists and/or art projects;

- community involvement opportunities;

- a preliminary estimate of the proposed overall budget based on currently estimated construction costs.

Approach:

The goal of the CityPlace Public Art Plan is to commission artwork of enduring value that engages its audience and speaks on a variety of different levels.

For residents and visitors, public art has the power to create and reinforce a sense of community particularly in areas of new development where there may have been no previous permanent community. Public art offers not only an immediate topic of conversation, but is an effective place maker.

From the urban design stand point, the CityPlace Public art Plan reinforces the physical connection of these lands with the city, enhancing site lines, new corridors, using public art to advantage in improving the urban conditions of specific areas.

Proposed Priority Locations:

Five possible locations offering a variety of approaches and supporting the priorities identified in the City's District Public Art Plan for Railway Lands Central and West have been identified. Some of the locations are on City-owned lands (see attached maps). All locations are publicly accessible, highly visible and offer opportunities for a variety of expression for public art.

Location 1 - Spadina/Bremner Boulevard:

Functional artwork in the form of a weather protection element. There should be an emphasis on marking the intersections along Spadina, especially at Bremner Boulevard.

Location 2 - Permanent Pedestrian Bridge:

The artwork may be integrated into the bridge design or form a significant feature as part of the bridge.

Location 3 - Community Park:

Thee Community park south of Blocks 29 and 26A presents an opportunity for the development of an artist designed earthwork.

Location 4 - Block 20 Open Space:

This location is open space along the east side of Blocks 20A and 20B. It terminates the view corridor south of Bremner Boulevard and affords an opportunity to add to the pattern of public art commissions that currently inhabit the north side of the boulevard.

Location 5 - Block 21 Open Space:

View Corridor enhancement to on or near Blocks 21A and 21B. This may take the form of a local point sculpture, a gateway or bridge-like element.

Future locations - The possiblity of future additional locations will be identified as the architectural program advances.

Public Artwork on City Lands:

It is understood that the development of artworks situated on publicly owned lands or in a public right of way must be coordinated with the appropriate City departments.

Estimated Public Art Budget:

Based on the current estimates and the formula for calculating Concord Adex's public art contribution, the cumulative public art contribution for CityPlace will be approximately $2.8 million. Over time, this amount may change depending on the final building program. The budgets will be confirmed upon determination of the value of the building permit as issued by the City.

Location 1 - Spadina/Bremner Boulevard $800,000

Location 2 - Permanent Pedestrian Bridge 650,000

Location 3 - Community Park 350,000

Location 4 - Block 20 Open Space 250,000

Location 5 - Block 21 Open Space 250,000

Future Locations 550,000

Art Selection Method:

In order to facilitate this plan over a number of years, Concord Adex has proposed to run public art information seminars for interested artists. The owners plan to advertise locally, nationally and internationally to create pools of artists that will be accessed when a public art project is launched. From these pools of artists, a number of different kinds of competitions will be conducted through juried interviews; and ideas, conceptual and/or design competitions. These lists of artists will be reviewed by the Public Art Commission.

All public art juries will have a majority of art experts independent of Concord Adex, and shall include at least one artist and one local community representative.

Mentor Program:

In order to build a pool of artists experienced in working in the public art field, this plan proposes to develop a mentor program through which the commissioned artists will work with other artists as part of a training experience. Up to $15,000 from each selected location should be reserved to compensate the mentored artist.

Community Involvement:

In addition to the inclusion of local representation on the art selection juries, the owner will engage the community in other ways such as ensuring that the call for artists will be extended throughout the immediate area, and artist information sessions and background information will be provided at the CityPlace sales centre.

Conclusions:

This plan conforms with the City's guidelines published by Urban Planning and Development Services in the Development Approval Manual and supports the objectives of the District Public Art Plan for the Railway Lands Central and West. I am in full support of the recommendations from the Public Art Commission and I look forward to the results of this Private Developer Percent for Public Art Plan.

Contact Name:

Jane Perdue

Public Art Co-ordinator, Urban Design

Tel: 416-392-1304

Fax: 416-392-1744

Email: jperdu@toronto.ca

--------

(A copy of a report dated June 25, 1999 from Ms. Karen Mills, Public Art Management for Concord Adex Developments Corp., titled "CityPlace Public Art Plan CityPlace Central & CityPlace West, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on July 15, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Insert Table/Map No. 1

CityPlace Public Art Plan

Public Art Plan - "Metropolis" 10 Dundas Street East

(Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project - Parcel A)

(Downtown)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to inform the Toronto Community Council of the proposed Metropolis Private Developer Percent for Public Art Plan and to seek approval of the recommendations made by the Public Art Commission concerning this plan.

Source of Funds

All costs associated with this Public Art Plan are the responsibility of the owners of the Metropolis project.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Toronto Community Council approve the following recommendations from the City of Toronto Public Art Commission:

(1) that the competition brief be provided to the Public Art Commission for comment prior to distribution to the artists; and

(2) that the Toronto Community Council approve the proposed Private Developer Percent for Public Art Plan, subject to the incorporation of the above recommendation from the Public Art Commission.

Council Reference:

The Ontario Municipal Board in an Order dated November 25, 1998, approved Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project. A Section 37 agreement was required to include a requirement for a one percent for public art commitment from the owners of the Metropolis project which is to be developed on Parcel A at the northeast corner of Yonge and Dundas Streets.

On May 27, 1999, Art Collection Canada (public art consultants for the Metropolis project), and owner representatives made a presentation to the Public Art Commission. The art consultants were requested to make revisions to the plan, and circulate it back to the Public Art Commission, prior to recommendations. The plan was revised, circulated and the final plan is now attached to this report.

Comments

The Metropolis Private Developer Percent for Public Art Plan as presented by the owner is attached to this report. A brief synopsis is as follows:

The Metropolis is a 320,000 square foot urban entertainment-retail complex to be constructed on the northeast corner of Yonge and Dundas Streets and is being built in conjunction with the redevelopment of the Yonge Dundas area in downtown Toronto.

The owner has decided to undertake a public art program to the value of 1% of the gross construction costs as determined by the value of the building permit upon issuance by the City. The guiding principles of the plan are as follows:

(1) provide the most visible and meaningful works of art for the physical and psychological enrichment of the public;

(2) commission Canadian artists with the experience and reputation that can be considered on par with top- calibre international artists; and

(3) provide such a unique opportunity and exciting art experience that it will draw Torontonians and tourists to "Metropolis" for no other reason than to see and experience the art.

Site opportunities:

The vertical interior space of the complex will be the emphasis of the art project. The space is 80 feet high and could have some type of sculpture suspended at various points. This site also offers the possibility of an integrated sculpture or an interactive work or works of art using one or more elements of sound, light, and sculptural components or a hybrid of these elements in combination.

The other site opportunities may include the exterior columns on the Yonge Street facade and/or free standing columns on the Dundas Street sidewalk, thus unifying the public art elements.

Estimated Public Art Budget:

At this stage, the owner has estimated that 1% of the gross construction costs is approximately $500,000. The final amount will be determined by the value of the building permit upon issuance by the City.

Exterior site 33% (approximately)

Interior site 66% (approximately)

to include: design fee, fabrication, delivery and installation

Administrative/competition costs at an upset of 10% (includes artists fees and jury costs)

Art Selection Method:

The owner has elected to run an invited juried competition among six artists or artist collaborations who will be chosen from the following list:

Evan Penny;

Colette Whiten/Paul Kipps;

Spring Hurlbut;

Janet Cardiff (Georges Bures Miller);

Bruce Mau;

Kim Tomczak and Lisa Steele;

David Rokeby;

James Carl; and

Michael Snow.

The jury will award one commission to an individual artist or team.

Jury Composition:

The jury will be comprised of two owner representatives from the following selection:

Stephen Moorhead, Chairman of Forrec, landscape architect; and

Glenn Miller, President of PenEquity Management Corporation or Keith Travis - Development Manager.

Three others who are art/media experts, one of whom is a local representative and/or business owner will be selected from the following list:

.Brian Boigon, architect, multi-media artist, computer expert;

Robert Sniderman, President, Senator Restaurant, founding member of Yonge Street Business and Resident Association, art collector, local business owner;

Christina Ritchie, Curator of Contemporary Art, Art Gallery of Ontario; and

Bruce Elder, critic, filmmaker, Professor of the Image Arts Program, Ryerson Polytechnic University.

Conclusions:

This Public Art Plan conforms with the City's guidelines, as published by Urban Planning and Development Services, in the Development Approval Manual. I am in full support of the recommendations from the Public Art Commission and I look forward to the results of this public art plan.

Contact Name:

Jane Perdue

Public Art Co-ordinator, Urban Design

Tel: 416-392-1304

Fax: 416-392-1744

Email: jperdu@toronto.ca

(A copy of a report titled "Proposed Public Art Plan for a Project called "Metropolis" located in the City of Toronto between Yonge, Dundas (East), Victoria and Gould Streets", dated June 1999 and prepared by Jane Zeidler and Sheila Zeldin and submitted to the Toronto Public Art Commission, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council for its meeting on July 15, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Insert Table/Map No. 1

10 Dundas Street East

Insert Table/Map No. 2

10 Dundas Street East

Ontario Municipal Board Decision and

Consultants Fees - 50 Prince Arthur Avenue

(Midtown)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 29, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To inform Council of the Ontario Municipal Board decision respecting 50 Prince Arthur Avenue and to advise of additional funds required to pay Mr. Leon Kentridge of Kentridge Johnston Limited.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds are available in the Legal Services Operating Budget. The funding implications are in the amount of an additional $6,000.00.

Recommendations:

That an additional amount of $6,000.00 be allocated from the Legal Services Operation Budget for the retention of outside planning advice for the Ontario Municipal Board hearing respecting 50 Prince Arthur Avenue, in addition to the funds previously authorized by Council.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of December 16, 1998, Council adopted Clause 59 of Toronto Community Council report No. 16, which instructed the City Solicitor to appear at the Ontario Municipal Board in support of the City's position in this matter and authorized funds in the amount of $26,000.00 plus GST and disbursements to be paid to the outside planning consultant retained by the City for the hearing.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

This matter involved applications for official plan amendment, rezoning, site plan approval, consent to convey and tree removal respecting 50 Prince Arthur Avenue which is an existing 19 storey apartment building in the Annex.

The hearing took place over 10 days. The City, represented by Ms. Sharon Haniford presented evidence through Mr. Leon Kentridge, an outside planning consultant, and Mr. Gary LeBlanc, a forester in the City's Forestry Division. Residents of the Lowther Mews, in support of the City's position were represented by a solicitor and a planning consultant. The Annex Resident's Association also presented evidence in support of the City's position. Residents of 50 Prince Arthur and numerous other Annex residents testified in support of the City's position. The applicant was represented by a solicitor and planning consultant.

The hearing took place over 10 days and involved applications for official plan and zoning amendments, severance and tree removal and injury under the City's Tree By-law in order to permit 8 infill townhouses to be erected within the open space at the rear of this tower in the park form apartment building, creating townhouses with no direct vehicular access from a public road and no street presence. One of the trees proposed to be removed was a large elm tree approximately 70 years old in good condition.

In its decision dated April 9, 1999, the Ontario Municipal Board dismissed all of the appeals by the applicant in this matter, upholding the City Council's decision. The Board found that the proposed development is not in keeping with the general intent of the Official Plan, being too intense a development for the site and not compatible with the surrounding area as it creates significant, unacceptable adverse impacts on the Lowther Mews, that it does not satisfy the criteria for a severance set forth in the Planning Act and that the proposal does not represent good planning.

The application to injure or destroy trees and the issue respecting park land conveyance versus money in lieu became academic as the Board was not approving the development related applications.

At the time of the December 16, 1998 decision of Council and when Mr. Kentridge was retained by the City, the hearing had been set down for 8 days and was expected to be completed in that timeframe. In fact the hearing took 10 days, with the Board sitting longer than usual hours for a number of those days. In addition, a great deal of preparation prior to and during the hearing was required, some of which could not have been anticipated and some of which was due to the manner in which the applicant approached the hearing. Accordingly, Mr. Kentridge's actual time spent is more in the order of $46,000.00 rather than the originally anticipated $26,000.00 fee previously reported, comprised of an additional $16,000.00 of preparatory work and $4,000.00 of hearing work.

I am requesting Council authority to pay Mr. Kentridge an additional $6,000.00 which would partially reimburse him for his additional work and expenses. Due to the complexity and duration of the hearing, I am satisfied this would be reasonable under the circumstances.

Conclusions:

The decision of City Council to refuse the applications was upheld by the Board. Mr. Kentridge had a significant role in the success the City achieved and the additional expense borne by him could not have been anticipated at the time of his retainer. I am recommending additional funds be made available to partially compensate him in this regard.

Contact Name:

Sharon Haniford

Solicitor

Planning and Administrative Tribunal Law

Telephone: (416) 392-6975

Fax: (416) 392-4420

Outdoor Advertising - Sam McBride Ferry

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) outdoor advertising on the exterior of the Sam McBride Ferry not be permitted, and that such decision not have any impact on other indoor advertising in major parks and recreation arenas and other major facilities; and

(2) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Heritage Toronto report to the Economic Development and Parks Committee on the negative impact of advertising on municipal infrastructure, particularly on historic buildings.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 29, 1999) from the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board:

Purpose:

This report responds to Councillor Chow's request for Heritage Toronto to comment on outdoor advertising on the Sam McBride Ferry.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That outdoor advertising on the exterior of the Sam McBride Ferry not be permitted.

Background:

Heritage Toronto received a communication dated June 2, 1999, from the City Clerk, requesting Heritage Toronto to report to the Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of July 15, 1999, on the pilot project of advertising on the outside of the Sam McBride Ferry.

At its meeting of June 28, 1999, Heritage Toronto adopted the motion that outdoor advertising on the exterior of the Sam McBride Ferry not be permitted.

Comments:

Preservation and Pier staff of Heritage Toronto have consulted each other to determine the historical basis for permitting outdoor third party advertising on the ferry's exterior. Staff have determined from the documentary sources that no advertising of any type other than the ferry's name band has historically been located on the exterior of the ferry. Therefore, there is no historical basis for permitting signs on the side of the ferry.

Advertising on the sides of the ferry should be considered with caution. The ferry service is a long standing tradition and feature of the City of Toronto. Permitting advertising, particularly, large third party advertising, affects the historical integrity and could cheapen the significance of the ferry service and the City's image.

Conclusion:

Therefore, it is recommended that outdoor advertising on the exterior of the Sam McBride Ferry should not be permitted.

Contact Name:

Marisa Williams

Preservation Officer, Architecture, Historical Preservation, Toronto Historical Board

205 Yonge Street, Toronto, ON M5B 1N2

Tel: 392-6827, ext. 240

Fax: 392-6834

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (July 8, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

This report will provide additional background with respect to the pilot project for advertising on the Toronto Island Ferry Service.

Source of Funds:

The pilot project is a $60,000 item in the 1999 budget of the Parks and Recreation Division. If the pilot project is not pursued on a long term basis, there is the potential for a significant revenue loss in future years.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

(1) the pilot project for advertising on the ferry service be referred to the Economic Development and Parks Committee and that a comprehensive evaluation report be presented at the November, 1999, Economic Development and Parks Committee meeting.

Background:

The Parks and Recreation Division has entered into a one year pilot project for advertising on one of the fleet of the Toronto Island Ferry Service. Specifically, the M.V. Sam McBride, has been outfitted with advertising depicting the trademark logo of Kool Aid (Kraft Canada Ltd.).

This project has been developed with the assistance of our advertising firm, Mega Media. Mega Media are working on the City's behalf to develop a range of advertising and sponsorship opportunities, including connecting with external organizations.

In the specific case of the Island Ferry Advertising Program, the Kool Aid Program was considered in the context of both the fact that this was a new initiative and balancing this with the Council direction and requirement to generate alternate sources of revenue. The advertising on the M.V. Sam McBride was installed in such a manner as not to permanently alter the structure or the physical integrity of the Ferry.

The Toronto Community Council has asked for the comments of Heritage Toronto with respect to the appropriateness of the advertising on the Sam McBride. The report of Heritage Toronto is included on the agenda for the Toronto Community Council on July 15, 1999.

Staff from the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department, were not consulted by Heritage Toronto in the preparation of their report. Council should have the benefit of the information and details about the age, composition and utility of the Toronto Island Ferry Fleet in order to full evaluate the impact of this project.

Conclusion:

The Department has received a variety of comments on the pilot project. We have received a petition of approximately 300 signatures, primarily from the Island Community, opposing the project. We have also received a number of positive comments from a variety of sources. We feel that there will be additional comments and information available at the conclusion of the project.

Community Council and City Council should have the benefit of a comprehensive evaluation of the entire pilot project at the conclusion of this summer. As this is a matter of policy with respect to advertising with City-wide implications, it is appropriate that this matter be referred to the Economic Development and Parks Standing Committee for consideration this fall.

Contact Name:

John A. Macintyre

Director of Parks and Recreation

Central Services and the Waterfront

Telephone: 397-4451

(A copy of a communication (June 22, 1999) from the Managing Director, Heritage Toronto, addressed to the Chair and Members, Toronto Historical Board, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on July 15, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Construction of a Pedestrian Bridge -

Within the Public Right of Way -

Over and Across Jarvis Street to Connect

109 Front Street East to St. Lawrence Market (Downtown)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) Appendix A attached to the report (June 30, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be amended by:

(a) adding the words, "supermarket and store" after the words, "No advertising of" in paragraph (d);

(b) adding the word, "materially" after the words, "The advertising shall not" in paragraph (e);

(2) City Council approve the construction of an overhead pedestrian bridge containing a cat-walk, lighting, advertising panels and support columns, over and across Jarvis Street to service and link the public parking spaces at 109 Front Street East to 92 Front Street East (St. Lawrence Market), subject to the owner of the building at 109 Front Street East and any licensees as may be required by the City Solicitor entering into an agreement with the City, agreeing to:

(a) Indemnify the City from and against all actions, suits, claims or demands and from all loss, costs, damages, charges and expenses that may result from such permission granted;

(b) Maintain the pedestrian bridge, containing a cat-walk, lighting, advertising panels and support columns, in good and proper repair and condition and in accordance with the Section 37 Agreement registered against the title of 109 Front Street East, to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Works and Emergency Services and Urban Planning and Development Services;

(c) The ownership of the bridge, cat-walk, lighting, advertising panels and support columns be transferred to the City upon expiry of the 25-year period, the beginning of which will be established by the Commissioners of Works and Emergency Services and Urban Planning and Development Services upon satisfactory completion of the work;

(d) Comply with the conditions of the Section 37 and Municipal Capital Facility Agreements respecting the pedestrian bridge, registered against the title of the property as Instrument Nos. E150208 and E150212 on February 23, 1998 between the City and 109 Front Street East Inc;

(e) Comply with Appendixes 'A', as amended, and 'B' of the report (June 30, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(f) Obtain written approval from Toronto Hydro Electric Systems regarding a possible conflict between their chamber and the bridge caisson;

(g) Accept such additional conditions as the City Solicitor or the Commissioners of Works and Emergency Services and Urban Planning and Development Services may deem necessary in the interest of the Corporation;

(3) City Council approve the advertising on the pedestrian bridge, subject to the criteria set out in Appendix A, as amended, attached to the report (June 30, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and waive the annual rental and advertising fees for the encroachment of the bridge and signage into the public right of way; and

(4) appropriate City of Toronto officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following joint report (June 30, 1999) from the Commissioners of Works and Emergency Services and Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To report on the construction of an overhead pedestrian bridge with a cat-walk, lighting, advertising panels, and support columns within the public right of way, over and across Jarvis Street required in connection with various legal agreements, to service and link the public parking garage at 109 Front Street East to St. Lawrence Market (92 Front Street East).

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The cost of construction of the pedestrian bridge is the responsibility of the owner of 109 Front Street West pursuant to various legal agreements. In order for this obligation to be in effect, the City must allow advertising panels to be installed and used on the bridge (in which case recommendation 2(a) would be adopted), or alternatively, the City may elect to acquire the pedestrian bridge for an amount equal to the cash-in-lieu component of the Parks Levy attributable to Phase IIc (Jarvis Street building) estimated in 1999 to be in the range of $207,000 (in which case recommendation 2(b) would be adopted).

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council approve the construction of an overhead pedestrian bridge containing a cat-walk, lighting, advertising panels and support columns, over and across Jarvis Street to service and link the public parking spaces at 109 Front Street East to 92 Front Street East (St. Lawrence Market), subject to the owner of the building at 109 Front Street East and any licensees as may be required by the City Solicitor entering into an agreement with the City, agreeing to:

(a) Indemnify the City from and against all actions, suits, claims or demands and from all loss, costs, damages, charges and expenses that may result from such permission granted;

(e) Comply with Appendixes 'A' and 'B' of this report;

(f) Obtain written approval from Toronto Hydro Electric Systems regarding a possible conflict between their chamber and the bridge caisson;

(2) That City Council:

(a) approve the advertising on the pedestrian bridge, subject to the criteria set out in Appendix 'A' of this report for the signage and waive the annual rental and advertising fees for the encroachment of the bridge and signage into the public right of way;

(b) deny the advertising on the pedestrian bridge, but acquire the bridge for an amount equal to the cash-in-lieu component of the parkland contribution attributable to Phase IIc building (Parks Levy), estimated in 1999 to be in the range of $207,000; and

(3) That appropriate City of Toronto officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

The proposed pedestrian bridge discussed in this report is being provided in conjunction with the construction of a large phased retail/residential development, commonly known as 109 Front Street East or the A2B site, situated on the east side of Jarvis Street across from the St. Lawrence Market (see Map 1). The bridge is intended to provide a safe, convenient connection between 205 public parking spaces in the parking garage of the development and St. Lawrence Market. The developer has a legal obligation to provide the pedestrian bridge as set out in various agreements with the City, subject to certain conditions. The legal agreements are the result of the settlement of a lengthy dispute between the City and 109 Front Street East over a longstanding requirement on the developer to replace surface parking that once existed on the site with structural parking to serve St. Lawrence Market patrons. The settlement has been authorized by both the former City of Toronto Council, the Financial Advisory Board and ordered by the Ontario Municipal Board.

Various legal agreements between the City and the developer implement the settlement including a Section 37 Agreement, a Municipal Capital Facility Agreement and an amending Development Agreement.

Comments:

1. Bridge Structure

Mr. Morton Gaines, The Camrost Corporation, 250 Davisville Avenue, Suite 401, Toronto, Ontario

M4S 1H2, acting on behalf of the owner 109 Front Street East, submitted an application to construct an overhead pedestrian bridge with a cat-walk, lighting, advertising panels and support columns within the public right of way, over and across Jarvis Street, to service and link the newly constructed condominium building at 109 Front Street East to 92 Front Street East (St. Lawrence Market).

The weather protected, overhead pedestrian bridge will provide a vertical clearance of 5.25 m over the existing grade. The columns for the bridge are required to support the structure. The lighting will be affixed to the cat-walk on the exterior of the bridge and the advertising panels to the bridge itself. The cat-walk on the outside of the bridge will serve as a maintenance corridor for staff to carry-out regular maintenance work. The conceptual design of the bridge is shown on Map 3 of this report.

The proposed bridge will provide the users of the public parking spaces situated within that building with direct access into the ground level of the City-owned, St. Lawrence Market (92 Front Street East). The bridge will be connected to a dedicated elevator and lobby within the Jarvis Street phase of the development (Phase IIc).

The former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting of May 28 and 29, 1990, adopted a general policy prohibiting the construction of overhead structures and pedestrian bridges over the public right-of-way, except for site specific locations where Council may approve of such structures on the recommendations of the Commissioners of Works and Emergency Services and Urban Planning and Development Services, providing appropriate justification and subject to the bridge being accessible to people with disabilities.

The proposed pedestrian bridge has been designed to accommodate persons with disabilities. In addition, the pedestrian bridge will provide convenient and dedicated access from the parking facility to the ground floor of St. Lawrence Market, a key City-owned institution.

The proposal has been reviewed by the Commissioners of Works and Emergency Services and Urban Planning and Development Services, the Public Utilities Co-ordinating Committee, and Heritage Toronto and found to be acceptable to all.

2. Advertising

The Section 37 Agreement between the City and the owner states that the City and the Developer shall use their best efforts to secure advertising rights on and within the pedestrian bridge. This, in part, was to assist in offsetting the construction cost of the bridge. If the advertising rights are not secured, then the City may elect to acquire the pedestrian bridge for an amount equal to the cash-in-lieu component of the Parks Levy for the last phase of the development in order to have the bridge constructed by the developer and then conveyed to the City. However, where the bridge is constructed with advertising permitted, it is to be conveyed to the City, with the 205 public parking spaces at the end of a 25-year period for $1.00 (one dollar), and subject to compliance with other provisions of the agreements.

In considering responses to a comprehensive Request for Proposals in 1995, for advertising in the public right of way, it was pointed out that Council must decide on the fundamental notion of allowing the proliferation of commercial advertising in public space, more particularly in the public right of way. The public is already exposed to intense commercial advertising in the form of billboards, posters, advertising kiosks, etc., immediately beyond on adjacent private properties and buildings, however, crossing the line directly into the public streets is a question of principle. Another consideration is whether the overall concept of advertising within the streets, as well as individual elements, is compatible with the efforts and resources expended by the City over the years to streamline streetscape design and promote a simple, clean design in street furniture and facilities.

This particular proposal may be seen to be somewhat analogous to the transit shelter program, where a valuable public facility is enabled as a result of advertising revenues.

As noted above, in the event that Council does not approve of the advertising component, it also has an option of acquiring the pedestrian bridge for an amount equal to the parkland contribution to the Phase IIc building (last phase of development). If Council decides to pursue neither of these alternatives, the developer's obligations to construct the pedestrian bridge are not in effect.

3. Fees

Under the City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 313, the property owner is required to pay an annual rental charge of $20.00 per square metre, based on the square metre of the area the bridge will occupy. This charge increases yearly based on the Consumer Price Index. Given that the bridge provides a substantial public benefit and that ownership will ultimately be assumed by the City, the protracted negotiations and litigation have resulted in a proposal to waive the fees and any direct revenue share to the City from the advertising component.

Conclusions:

The proposed pedestrian bridge and public parking are a significant piece of infrastructure which will enhance the vitality and long term health of the St. Lawrence Market. For this reason, construction of the pedestrian bridge is an important part of the settlement of the legal and planning dispute respecting 109 Front Street East.

Contact Names:

Angie Antoniou,Manager Lance Alexander, Planner

Right of Way Management, District 1 Urban Planning and Development Services

Works and Emergency Services Telephone: 392-7573

Telephone: 392-1525

--------

Appendix 'A'

Advertising Signs

(a) Advertising signs shall be non-illuminated and lit with exterior lighting affixed to the pedestrian bridge's cat-walk.

(b) The total aggregate advertising signage area shall not exceed 46 square metres.

(c) No more than 10 signs shall be erected and used, of which one sign on the north and one sign on the south side of the pedestrian bridge shall be used to advertise the public parking available at 109 Front Street East.

(d) No advertising of competitors to St. Lawrence Market shall be displayed.

(e) The advertising shall not detract from the St. Lawrence Market and the owner shall give notice to the City of each item of proposed bridge advertising at least 14 days before it is intended to be displayed.

(f) Each sign shall be incorporated into the pedestrian bridge as shown in drawing No. 3 attached to this report.

(g) Each sign shall have a maximum height of 1.4 metres and a maximum width of 3.5 metres.

(h) The signage, with the exception of those adverting the availability of the public parking located at 109 Front Street East shall be located on the bridge, between the vertical foundation support columns.

(i) The signage shall comply with the City of Toronto's Code of Ethics for advertising (Appendix 'B').

Appendix 'B'

Code Of Ethics

Advertisements shall not:

1. present images or information which is discriminatory in tone or content, as defined by the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Advertising Foundation;

2. contain inaccurate of deceptive claims or statements;

3. present products prohibited from sale to minors in such a way as to appeal particularly to persons under legal age;

4. reflect partisan viewpoints or take a stand on controversial societal issues;

5. exploit violence and sexuality;

6. advertise alcoholic beverages, except in sponsorship of appropriate events and where the content of the advertisement primarily displays, promotes or announces the event. Advertising, signage or sponsorship of an event targeted to children/youth under the age of 19 years, will not be accepted;

7. advertise tobacco products;

8. interfere with the operation of equipment or the provision of programs and services;

9. violate or conflict with any existing City policies or any new policies that may be enacted.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

109 Front Street East

Insert Table/Map No. 2

109 Front Street East

Insert Table/Map No. 3

109 Front Street East

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (July 7, 1999) from the Managing Director, Heritage Toronto:

Recommendation:

That Council be advised that the Board of Heritage Toronto states its objection to the pedestrian overhead bridge in the Old Town of York because it will significantly detract from the historic character of the Town of York.

Comments:

Background:

The property known as 91 Front Street East (Old City Hall and St. Lawrence Market) was included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties as part of List No. 01, adopted by City Council on June 20, 1973. It is also designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by By-law No. 115-76, passed by City Council on March 31, 1976.

On May 1, 1998, and in an amending order, issued May 5, 1999, the OMB ordered that a bridge must be constructed between the new condominium at 109 Front Street East and St. Lawrence Market.

At its meeting of June 28^th, 1999, the Board of Heritage Toronto considered the attached staff report which outlines staff concerns and comments regarding the bridge connection. The Board adopted the recommendation contained therein.

Discussion:

As an individual historic building, the Market Building can withstand the proposed pedestrian bridge. Designed by Roy Varacalu of Burka Architects, the brige is intended to appear as a drawbridge that settles onto the upper landing (the main floor) of the Market. The design of the proposed bridge is acceptable.

Given the OMB order, the City is unable to enforce its policies against overhead bridges and third party advertising. Heritage Toronto regrets the OMB decision. However well designed the bridge may be, though, Heritage Toronto would prefer not to see an overhead bridge erected in the Old Town of York. We believe that it is counter to promoting the area as having a special historic identity. The origins of the City of Toronto are found in the Town of York. We believe it deserves more sensitive treatment.

--------

(Report dated June 23, 1999 from the Managing Director, Heritage Toronto respecting 91 Front Street East, Pedestrian Bridge New Times Square Condominium/Garage to St. Lawrence Market)

Recommendation:

That Heritage Toronto state its objection to the pedestrian overhead bridge in the Old Town of York because it will significantly detract for the historic character of the Town of York.

Comments:

Background:

The issue of a connection between the new condominium and St. Lawrence Market was raised by the tenants of the Market at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing regarding the new condominium development at 109 Front Street East, known as New Times Square. For many years, customers of the Market had a large surface parking facility available, located at 109 Front Street. The new development will provide parking for the occupants of the building. The developer also agreed to make available parking for the public within the new structure. However, the tenants of the Market argued in favour of having a direct link from the new parking garage to the Market building. Two options were proposed: an underground tunnel and a covered bridge. The OMB Order, issued May 1, 1998, and amending Order, issued May 5, 1999, required the developer to build a covered pedestrian bridge from the public parking to the Market Building and the order instructed the City to take all reasonable measures to implement such a bridge. To assist in the costs of building the bridge, the developer is permitted to place advertising on the bridge.

Discussion:

Staff have met with Urban Planning and Development Services staff and the development team on several occasions during the past year to resolve design, engineering, location, and sign issues surrounding the construction of a pedestrian bridge over a major City road in a sensitive historic area of the City. There is a policy of the City against the construction of pedestrian bridges over roads. Exceptions to this policy have made in the past. Thus, each case is treated on their individual requirements and constraints.

As an individual historic building, the Market Building can withstand the proposed pedestrian bridge. Designed by Roy Varacalu of Burka Architects, the bridge is intended to appear as a drawbridge that settles onto the upper landing (the main floor) of the Market. The design of the proposed bridge is acceptable to staff.

Given the OMB Order, the City is unable to enforce the policy against overhead bridges. However well designed the bridge may be, though, Heritage Toronto staff would prefer not to see an overhead bridge erected in the Old Town of York. We believe it is counter to promoting this area as having a special historic identity. The origins of the City of Toronto are found in the Town of York.

In summary, staff can support the design of the overhead bridge as an alteration to an individual historic building, but does not agree with the introduction of overhead bridges in the Old Town of York. This is where Toronto was founded.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

91 Front Street East

Insert Table/Map No. 2

91 Front Street East

Insert Table/Map No. 3

91 Front Street East

Insert Table/Map No. 4

91 Front Street East

Appointment - Swansea Town Hall

Board of Management (High Park)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Mr. Mike Whyte be appointed to the Swansea Community Recreation Centre Advisory Committee to replace Ms. Valerie Cooper-Wells, on an interim basis, at the pleasure of Council, and until his successor is appointed.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (June 21, 1999) from Ms. Sally Dillon, Secretary, Swansea Town Hall Community Centre, addressed to the City Clerk:

Last week, at its June meeting, the Swansea Town Hall Board of Management accepted the change in representation from the Swansea Community Recreation Centre Advisory Committee (See attached notice). That nominee is:

Mike Whyte

qualified to serve on the Board pursuant to the terms established by the applicable City of Toronto by-law (Municipal Code, Chapter 25). He replaces Valerie Cooper-Wells.

We trust that you will insure that this nomination is processed in the customary way and that we will be notified when the approval is made by Council.

Dedication of Street Name -

PC Michael Sweet (Downtown)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July 14, 1999) from the City Surveyor, Technical Services Division:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the new temporary east-west street named Simcoe Street be renamed in memory of Police Constable Michael Sweet.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A

Recommendations:

(1) That the new temporary street named Simcoe Street, located north of Queen Street West between Simcoe Street and St. Patrick Street, illustrated on the enclosed Map A, be renamed "Michael Sweet Avenue";

(2) That the proposed permanent street, to be located south of the temporary street, illustrated on the enclosed Map A, be named "Michael Sweet Avenue," when the temporary street is closed; and

(3) That the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect to, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

Background:

I have a request from Councillor Olivia Chow to rename the new east-west section of Simcoe Street, located north of Queen Street West between Simcoe Street and St. Patrick Street in memory of Police Constable Michael Sweet. On March 14, 1980, Police Constable Michael Sweet, No. 52 Division was shot and killed while on duty attending to a robbery on Queen Street West between Simcoe Street and St. Patrick Street.

This temporary street was laid out, dedicated and named "Simcoe Street" by By-law 421-1998 and is now open to vehicular traffic. There are no property addresses affected by the renaming of the street.

Comments:

Fire Services support the name but has requested that the street type identifier "Street" not be used as it may be difficult to enunciate when combined with Sweet. Heritage Toronto has no objection to naming the street in honour of Police Constable Michael Sweet.

Conclusions:

The proposed name Michael Sweet is not duplicated in the City of Toronto and is consistent with the policy for naming streets and lanes approved by the former Toronto City Council on July 11, 1988 (Clause 4, Executive Committee Report No.22).

Contact Name:

Desmond Christopher

Telephone: (416)392-1831; Fax: (416)392-0081; E-mail: dchristo@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Sweet Avenue

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (June 30, 1999) from Councillor Chow:

Recommendation:

(1) That the City of Toronto name the new street that will run north of Queen Street West between Simcoe and St. Patrick Streets in memory of Police Constable Michael Sweet.

Background:

On March 14, 1980, Police Constable Michael Sweet, No. 52 Division was shot and killed, while on duty, attending a robbery on Queen Street West between Simcoe and St. Patrick Streets.

As a permanent memorial, I am requesting the naming of this new street in honour of PC Sweet.

Litter Receptacle Request -

110 Boultbee Avenue (East Toronto)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a litter receptacle be placed at 110 Boultbee Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (June 21, 1999) from Councillor Jakobek:

I have attached for your perusal a copy of a letter received from Works and Emergency Services regarding a request for litter receptacle.

Lily's Variety's owner would like a receptacle so that customers don't throw their garbage on the street. They are trying to be good neighbours.

Please ask Works and Emergency Services to proceed and place a litter receptacle at 110 Boultbee Avenue.

--------

Communication dated June 14, 1999 from the Senior Manager, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services, addressed to Mr. Luis M. Sequeira, c/o Ms. Yueh I. Huang, Lily's Variety:

I have your letter dated May 7, 1999 on behalf of Ms. Huang, regarding the above.

Chapter 313 of the Municipal Code pertaining to streets and sidewalks in the Toronto Community Council Area requires owner/occupants of all properties to cleanly sweep and keep free of obstruction the sidewalks adjacent to their premises. On arterial/commercial streets, sidewalk litter cleaning services is provided by Works and Emergency Services to assist property owners and occupants in maintaining clean conditions.

The subject streets are classified as residential, receiving once a week mechanical sweeping and once a month manual cleaning services during the regular cleaning session from April 1 to November 30 each year. Litter receptacles are strategically placed throughout the City on main arterial roads in areas having heavy pedestrian traffic. Each litter receptacle in the City costs about $700.00 in maintenance, emptying and disposal excluding the initial purchase cost.

In consideration of the above, I advise that your request to place a litter receptacle at the corner of Boultbee Avenue and Condor Avenue cannot be accommodated. I will, however, monitor the area to ensure that it continues to receive the appropriate litter cleaning service to maintain clean conditions.

Disposal and Sale of City-owned Vacant Land

Part of the Remnant Portion of the Public Lane

Crossing Harris Road (a Private Road) (Davenport)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 21, 1999) from the Chief Administrative Officer and Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to obtain City Council approval:

(a) to declare as surplus City-owned lands shown as Part 1 on Plan of Survey 64R-15877, being a remnant portion of the public lane crossing Harris Road (a Private Road); and

(b) to authorize the sale of Part 1 to 1260200 Ontario Inc., the adjoining property owner at a sale price of $9,205.50.

Financial Implications:

The proceeds from the sale of these lands will generate revenues to the City as set out in this report. The net proceeds from the sale of these lands should be credited to the Capital Funds From Assets Sold Account.

Recommendations:

Subject to City Council approving the stopping up and closing of the remnant portion of the public lane crossing Harris Road (a Private Road), shown as Part 1 on Plan 64R-15877, (the "Remnant Lane") it is recommended that:

(1) City Council declare the proposed conveyance of the Remnant Lane to be in compliance with Section 3.3 of the former City of Toronto Official Plan, Part 1- Cityplan;

(2) the Remnant Lane be declared surplus;

(3) the Remnant Lane be sold to 1260200 Ontario Inc. upon compliance with the following terms and conditions:

(a) indemnify the City together with such other persons as the City Solicitor may require, against all lost, cost, damage or action arising as a result of the closing and/or the sale;

(b) pay to the City the sum of $9,205.50 for the Remnant Lane, reflecting an overall rate of $149.93 per square metre of land;

(c) pay all out-of-pocket expenses that will be incurred by the City as a result of the closing and conveyance, estimated to be $3,500.00, and agree that any such money expended will not be refunded in the event that the transaction is not completed, the cost for the City's out-of-pocket expenses is estimated and the applicant will be responsible for the actual cost; and

(d) comply with such other terms and conditions as the City Solicitor may deem advisable to protect the City's interests;

(4) upon compliance with the terms and conditions set out in Recommendation No. 3 above, the Remnant Lane be conveyed to 1260200 Ontario Inc.;

(5) the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to give notice to the public of the proposed sale to the adjoining property owner of the Remnant Lane;

(6) the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Executive Director of Facilities and Real Estate, be authorized to complete this transaction on the basis of such terms and conditions as required by the City Solicitor and in a form and content satisfactory to the City Solicitor; and

(7) the appropriate Civic Officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing, including introducing the necessary bills in Council.

Background:

1260200 Ontario Inc. is proceeding with a proposal to develop a large parcel of land on the north side of St. Clair Avenue West, extending easterly from Symes Road to Gunns Road. 1260200 Ontario Inc. has submitted an application to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to stop up, close and convey the Remnant Lane. 1260200 Ontario Inc. is the only adjoining owner of this portion of public lane.

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services is reporting to the Toronto Community Council meeting of July 15, 1999 for referral to City Council for approval on July 27, 28, and 29, 1999, on this application to stop up and close this remnant portion of a public lane. Staff of Works and Emergency Services have indicated that they have no objections to the sale of the Remnant Lane to the adjoining property owner.

1260200 Ontario Inc. has expressed an interest in acquiring the Remnant Lane, containing an area of approximately 61.4 m² and has agreed to pay the sum of $9,205.50, being the estimated market value for Part 1.

Comments:

City Council, at its meeting held on July 31, 1998, passed By-law No. 551-98 to establish procedures governing the sale of Real Property. Where City Council has declared a site to be surplus in accordance with the Municipal Act, the Commissioner of Corporate Services shall give notice to the public of the proposed sale. An appraisal of the current market value of the site has been completed by City staff.

Conclusion:

The Remnant Lane is surplus to City requirements and, subject to City Council approving the stopping up and closing of the Remnant Lane as a public highway, the sale of this land at market value to the adjoining owners is acceptable. The sale will result in $9,205.50 being paid to the City for the land.

Contact Name:

Ron J. Banfield

Telephone - 392-1859; Fax - 392-1880; E-mail - rbanfiel@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Vacant Land - Harris Road

Adjustments to the Parking Regulations -

Bellair Street between Cumberland Street

and Bloor Street West and Yorkville Avenue

north side opposite Bellair Street (Midtown)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Toronto Community Council for further consideration.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July 6, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To facilitate vehicular movements on Bellair Street between Cumberland Street and Bloor Street West and access from Bellair Street onto Yorkville Avenue by the introduction of a "No Stopping Anytime" zones.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of the signage to establish this "No Stopping Anytime" zone in the estimated amount of $400.00 are available under the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That the "No Parking at Anytime" prohibition on the east side of Bellair Street, from Bloor Street West to the lane first south of Cumberland Street (Critchley Lane), be changed to "No Stopping at Anytime;

(2) That the "No Stopping at Anytime" prohibition on the north side of Yorkville Avenue, from Bay Street to Bellair Street, be changed to operate from Bay Street to a point 12 m west of Bellair Street;

(3) That the "No Parking at Anytime" prohibition on both sides of Yorkville Avenue from Bellair Street to Avenue Road be changed to operate on the south side only;

(4) That parking be prohibited at anytime on the north side of Yorkville Avenue from a point 12 m west of Bellair Street to Avenue Road; and

(5) That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect thereto including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

Comments:

At the request of the Bloor-Yorkville B.I.A. Traffic Committee, Transportation Services staff reviewed the existing parking regulations on Bellair Street, from Bloor Street West to Cumberland Street, and on the north side of Yorkville Avenue, opposite Bellair Street, with the intention of improving the vehicular flow on the above portion of Bellair Street and to facilitate northbound to westbound left-turning movements from Bellair Street onto Yorkville Avenue.

Bellair Street, from Cumberland Street to Bloor Street West, operates two-way on a 7.3 m wide pavement. Currently, standing is prohibited at anytime on the east side of Bellair Street, from Cumberland Street to the lane first south of Cumberland Street (Critchley Lane), and parking is prohibited at anytime from this lane to Bloor Street West. On the west side of Bellair Street, from Cumberland Street to Bloor Street West, parking is prohibited at anytime.

When vehicles, particularly trucks, are stopped for loading purposes or are parked illegally on both sides of this portion of Bellair Street, it is very difficult, for vehicles, especially trucks, to travel along this street because of the obstructions caused by parked/loading vehicles.

To keep the east side of Bellair Street clear of obstructing vehicles while still permitting loading activities on the west side, a "No Stopping at Anytime" prohibition should be introduced on the east side of Bellair Street from Bloor Street West to the lane first south of Cumberland Street (Critchley Lane).

Yorkville Avenue, which has a pavement width of 7.3 m, operates one-way westbound from Bellair Street to Avenue Road and two-way from Bellair Street to Bay Street. Bellair Street, from Cumberland Street to Yorkville Avenue, operates one-way northbound on a 6.1 m wide pavement and terminates at Yorkville Avenue to form a "T"-type intersection. Currently, stopping is prohibited at anytime on both sides of Yorkville Avenue, from Bay Street to Bellair Street, and parking is prohibited at anytime from Bellair Street to Avenue Road.

When vehicles, particularly trucks, are stopped on the north side of Yorkville Avenue, directly across from Bellair Street, while loading/parking illegally it becomes very difficult for larger vehicles, especially trucks and buses, to execute northbound to westbound left turns due to the reduced turning radius created.

To keep the area on the north side of Yorkville Avenue, directly opposite Bellair Street, clear of obstructing vehicles, the existing "No Stopping Anytime " regulation on the north side of Yorkville Avenue, from Bay Street to Bellair Street, should be extended from a point opposite the east curb line of Bellair Street to a pont 18.1 m further west thereof. This 18.1 m distance would include the width of Bellair Street and an additional 12 m to provide a clear area for vehicles to execute northbound left turns from Bellair Street onto westbound Yorkville Avenue.

The above proposals should not unduly hamper loading opportunities in the general area as the west side of Bellair Street, from Bloor Street West to Cumberland Street, the north side of Yorkville Avenue, from a point 12 m west of Bellair Street to Avenue Road, as well as south side of Yorkville Avenue, from Bellair Street to Avenue Road, are designated as "No Parking at Anytime" areas where loading activities are legally permissible.

Contact Name:

Michael J. Harris

Supervisor Traffic Engineering, District 1(Central)

Telephone: 392-7711

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (July 20, 1999) from Mr. R. S. Saunderson, Chairman, Bloor Yorkville Business Improvement Area, requesting that Council not consider the adjustment of parking regulations in the Midtown area at this time, having regard that the BIA is presently reviewing a traffic study for the area and plans to discuss this matter with City staff.)

Removal of the "One Hour Maximum"

Parking Regulation - Hillsdale Avenue, from

Forman Avenue to Cleveland Street (North Toronto)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July 6, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To facilitate parking for longer periods of time for residents and visitors on Hillsdale Avenue, from Forman Avenue to Cleveland Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $300.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That the "One Hour Maximum" parking regulation be rescinded on Hillsdale Avenue from Forman Avenue to Cleveland Street; and

(2) That the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the forgoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

Comments:

At the request of North Toronto Councillor Anne Johnston, on behalf of area residents, Transportation Services' staff have investigated the feasibility of rescinding the existing one hour parking restrictions on Hillsdale Avenue, from Forman Avenue to Cleveland Street, to facilitate longer parking for residents and visitors.

Hillsdale Avenue from Forman Avenue to Cleveland Street, operates two-way on a pavement width of 8.5 metres. Alternate side parking is in operation on this section of Hillsdale Avenue and parking is permitted for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday. Parking is otherwise permitted for a maximum period of three hours and permit parking is not in operation on this section of Hillsdale Avenue.

It is my understanding that Councillor Johnston's office conducted an unofficial poll of the residents of the subject portion of Hillsdale Avenue, with the majority of those responding being in favour of removing the one hour maximum parking regulation. The removal of the one hour parking limit would allow motorists the opportunity to park up to a maximum of three hours.

Contact Name:

Randy Hillis, Traffic Investigator

Telephone: (416) 392-7771

Request to Lay-out and Dedicate for Public

Highway Purposes - City-owned Reserve Strip

abutting the north limit of Lorindale Avenue

(North Toronto)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that

(1) Council layout and dedicate, for public highway purposes, the 0.3 metre wide City owned reserve strip at the north limit of Lorindale Avenue as shown hatched on the print of Plan SYE2926, dated June 25, 1999 attached to the report (July 5, 1999) from theDirector, Transportation Services District 1 to enable access to the parking garage of Premises No. 3130 Yonge Street; and

(2) That the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect thereto, including the introduction in Council of any bills that might be necessary.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to provide support to the Ward Councillors to enable them to have a community meeting and report thereon directly to Council.

The above recommendation and request to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services was carried on the following division of votes:

Yeas: Councillors McConnell, Adams, Bossons, Chow, Disero, Fotinos, Jakobek, Korwin-Kuzynski, Layton, Pantalone, Rae and Silva - 12

Nays: Councillor Walker - 1

The following motion placed by Councillor Walker was lost on the following division of votes:

"That consideration of this matter be deferred until the meeting of the Toronto Community Council to be held on September 14, 1999, to permit the Ward Councillors to have a community meeting."

Yeas: Councillors Adams and Walker - 2

Nays: Councillors McConnell, Bossons, Chow, Disero, Fotinos, Jakobek, Korwin-Kuzynski, Layton, Pantalone, Rae and Silva - 11

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 5, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To respond to an application made on behalf of Lawrence Park Residences Corp., with respect to the proposed development at Premises No. 3130 Yonge Street, to lift the 0.3 metre-wide City-owned reserve strip at the north limit of Lorindale Avenue and to lay-out and dedicate this land for public highway purposes.

Funding Sources:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That Council decide whether to layout and dedicate, for public highway purposes, the 0.3 metre wide City owned reserve strip at the north limit of Lorindale Avenue as shown hatched on the attached print of Plan SYE2926, dated June 25, 1999 to enable access to the parking garage of Premises No. 3130 Yonge Street; and

(2) That the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect thereto, including the introduction in Council of any bills that might be necessary.

Background:

Ms. Cynthia MacDougall of McCarthy Tetrault, Barristers and Solicitors, has applied, on behalf of Lawrence Park Residences Corp., the owners of Premises No. 3130 Yonge Street, in a letter dated February 25, 1999, for the 1 foot reserve (0.3 metres) located at the north limit of Lorindale Avenue to be laid out and dedicated as public highway. This would permit vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed development on the subject site from Lorindale Avenue.

Comments:

By-law No. 13466 passed on December 14, 1931, established a one-foot reserve strip (0.3 metres) across the north end of Lorindale Avenue which is to be held by the City "until required for the further northerly extension of said Lorindale Avenue".

The proposed development at Premises No. 3130 Yonge Street was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board at a hearing in 1997. The approved development comprises a 6-storey apartment with retail at-grade fronting Yonge Street and a 4-storey apartment building, stepping up to 5 storeys, located centrally on the site. A maximum of 80 units is permitted in these 2 buildings. An additional 9 townhouse units are proposed at the west end of the site. The project will be served by a single below-grade parking garage with approximately 100 parking spaces.

The location of the vehicular access to the below-grade parking garage has been an ongoing issue related to this project. Both an access from Lorindale Avenue and an access from Yonge Street have been considered at various stages of the development review process, and both locations have been demonstrated to operate adequately, from strictly a traffic capacity perspective. Residents on Lorindale Avenue and local Councillors have continually expressed concern with access from Lorindale Avenue because of the impact of the traffic which would be generated by this development. The applicant's traffic consultant has estimated that this development would generate approximately 25 two-way vehicle trips during the peak hours.

In the February 6, 1998 OMB decision with respect to this development proposal, it was indicated that:

"The Board does not have jurisdiction to compel the City to lift the one foot reserve, nor does the Board have the authority to compel Metropolitan Toronto to permit access from Yonge Street. That is a decision which will have to be made elsewhere, and this decision will only assess the alternate access proposals from the perspective of which proposal is better planning."

It should be noted that access to the loading space of the project is intended to be from Lorindale Avenue. It is access to the parking garage that remains in question.

With respect to the two access options, staff conducted traffic counts and gap surveys on Yonge Street which demonstrated that the operations of a Yonge Street access would be manageable, although some delays would be experienced. The traffic generated by the development would be similar in magnitude to the traffic previously using the existing driveway at this location serving a car dealership.

The developer and its solicitor and traffic consultant are recommending the Lorindale access, based on the policy framework and traffic safety and operations. They note that Yonge Street is an important pedestrian corridor and safety would be enhanced if there were no direct vehicular access. From a planning and urban design perspective, a continuous Yonge Street facade, which would enable the planting of trees, is preferable to a garage ramp. In terms of operations, the minor additional traffic volumes would be accommodated more effectively with a Lorindale access. It is indicated that the parking entrance is proposed at the northerly end of the lands and will be removed from the sight of the existing residents. They note that from a policy perspective, both related to direct access to arterials, and the City's main streets policies, the Lorindale access is appropriate and preferable.

Conclusion:

The provision of vehicular and pedestrian access from Lorindale Avenue to serve this development, by laying out and dedicating the 0.3 metre-wide reserve strip as public highway is workable. The impact of this access on the residents of Lorindale Avenue is a qualitative matter, having more to do with quality of life issues. There are also urban design issues and, in this regard, staff of the Urban Design section of Urban Planning and Development Services have indicated that an access to Lorindale Avenue is preferable in order to achieve a continuous building frontage on Yonge Street.

Contact Name:

John Mende, Manager

Traffic Planning, District 1

Telephone: 392-7713

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Lorindale Avenue

- (July 14, 1999) from Ms. Cynthia Macdougall, McCarthy Tétrault, Barristers and Solicitors.

- (July 14, 1999) from Mr. Michael Opara, Co-Chair, Bedford Park Residents Association.

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (undated) from the Ontario Municipal Board, submitted by Councillor Walker, respecting the appeal of M & H Sales Limited to the Board regarding Council's refusal or neglect to enact a proposed amendment to Zoning By-law No. 438-86.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (July 28, 1999) from Councillor Michael Walker, regarding the request to layout and dedicate for public highway purposes - City-owned Reserve Strip abutting the north limit of Lorindale Avenue (North Toronto).)

Prohibition of Parking on both sides

from 12:00 noon to 4:00 a.m. Saturday

and Sunday - Polson Street (Don River)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July 2, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To enhance safety for pedestrians, roller-bladers and cyclists during the peak operational period of nearby recreational and entertainment facilities.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $500.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That the parking prohibition from 6:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m., daily on both sides of Polson Street from Cherry Street to the west end, be adjusted to apply from 6:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m., Monday to Friday;

(2) That parking be prohibited from 12:00 noon to 4:00 a.m., Saturday and Sunday on both sides of Polson Street from Cherry Street to the west end; and

(3) That the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect thereto, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

Comments:

At the request of a representative of The Docks Restaurant & Night Club, Premises No. 11 Polson Street, staff of Transportation Services have investigated prohibiting parking on weekends during the daytime on both sides of Polson Street to enhance safety for cyclists and roller-bladers frequenting the lakefront area.

Polson Street operates two-way from Cherry Street to the west end, a distance of about 400 metres, on a pavement width of 12.8 metres. Parking is prohibited on both sides of the street from 6:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m., daily and otherwise allowed for a maximum period of 3 hours. The parking prohibition noted above was implemented in 1997 to address concerns expressed by the Police Service about vehicular/pedestrian congestion and safety in the evenings resulting from traffic generated by The Docks.

Although initially an evening entertainment establishment, recreational expansion at The Docks has increased patronage during the daytime on weekends resulting in higher traffic volumes on the street. Extending the hours of the parking prohibition on both sides of the street to begin a 12:00 noon and extend to 4:00 a.m. on weekends would not have a significant impact on other business operations on Polson Street but will enhance safety for pedestrians, roller-bladers and cyclists.

Contact Name:

Ron Hamilton

Supervisor,

Traffic Engineering

Telephone: 392-1806

Construction of a Layby - Eglinton Avenue East

south side, between Redpath Avenue and Lillian Street

in front of 123 Eglinton Avenue East (North Toronto)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July 6, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on the construction of a layby on the south side of Eglinton Avenue East, in front of Premises No. 123 as previously approved by Council in connection with a proposed development project.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

All costs associated with this proposal are to be borne by the developer (Eglinton Place Inc. - Tridel).

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on the south side of Eglinton Avenue East, from a point approximately 28 m west of Redpath Avenue to a point approximately 33 m further west, for the construction of a layby as described below:

"The construction of a layby on the south side of EGLINTON AVENUE EAST from a point approximately 28 m west of Redpath Avenue to a point approximately 33 m further west, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No.421F-5415, dated July, 1999;" and

(2) That the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take whatever action is necessary to implement the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that might be required.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting held on October 28, 29, and 30, 1998, received Clause No. 70(b) of Report No. 12 of the Toronto Community Council, entitled Final Report - Application 197021 - Site Specific Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval to Permit the Existing Union Carbide Building to be Replaced with an 18-storey Residential Condominium Apartment Building at 123 Eglinton Avenue East and 108 Redpath Avenue (North Toronto). Toronto Community Council requested, among other things, that "the City take whatever action is necessary to permit a layby access to the site from Eglinton Avenue East, including the amendment of site plan drawings which will form part of the Statement of Approval/Undertaking to include a layby access from Eglinton Avenue East and the issuance of the necessary permits".

The Statement of Approval/Undertaking, dated November 25, 1998, between the City of Toronto and Eglinton Place Inc., the owner of the above site, includes provisions for the construction of a layby at the applicant's cost as well as conveyance to the City of a 2.18 m wide by 31.5 m long right-of-way along the south limit of Eglinton Avenue East, behind the layby, to provide for a widening of the remaining sidewalk within the Eglinton Avenue East road allowance, so that a 4.5 m wide sidewalk is maintained.

Comments:

Further to the direction to provide a layby in connection with the development on adjacent lands, as noted in the above-reference Clause, a design has been developed to provide layby access on the south side of Eglinton Avenue East, between Redpath Avenue and Lillian Street, in front of Premises No. 123 Eglinton Avenue East. The Union Carbide building is currently undergoing demolition in preparation of the construction of the condominium building approved by City Council.

Eglinton Avenue, in the vicinity of Premises No. 123, is a 5 lane arterial roadway with a speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour. On the south side, standing is prohibited at anytime from Redpath Avenue to a point approximately 62 m west thereof (a transit stop zone) and from that point to Lillian Avenue, 4 parking meter spaces are provided which operate from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Stopping is prohibited from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, in conjunction with the reserved transit/taxi/bicycle lane which operates during the same time periods in the southerly most eastbound traffic lane.

The proposed layby is shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5415 and commences at a point approximately 28 m west of Redpath Avenue to a point approximately 33 m further west. This layby will accommodate 3 passenger vehicles and under the existing "No Standing Anytime" regulation associated with the existing TTC bus stop, will allow for passenger pick up/drop off activities within the layby. Alternative loading facilities have been incorporated into the design of the new building for the loading of goods and/or merchandise.

The applicant has been required to convey to the City a 2.18 m by 31 m right-of-way to be added to the remaining sidewalk on the south side of Eglinton Avenue East to compensate for the sidewalk space to be lost by the construction of the layby. It is noted that all costs associated with the construction of the layby and the sidewalk reconstruction/widening are to be borne by the owner of Premises No. 123 Eglinton Avenue East.

Contact Name:

Stephen Benjamin

Manager

Traffic Operations, District 1

(Central Area)

Telephone: (416) 392-7771

Insert Table/Map No. 1

123 Eglinton Avenue East

Installation/Removal of On-Street Disabled

Persons Parking Spaces

(Davenport, East Toronto and High Park)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 29, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on requests for the installation/removal of a number of disabled on-street parking spaces.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $600.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1) That the installation/removal of disabled on-street parking spaces as noted in Table "A" of this report be approved; and

(2) That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

Comments:

Works and Emergency Services staff have investigated the feasibility of installing/removing a number of on-street disabled persons parking spaces at various locations as outlined on the attached Table "A" of this report.

All applicants are holders of valid disabled persons parking permits issued by the Ministry of Transportation and the designated space will not result in the deprivation of more than one on-street parking space. Locations where on-street disabled persons parking spaces are to be removed result from applicants moving, holding expired permits or no longer requiring these on-street parking privileges.

Contact Name:

S. Burk, Co-ordinator

Transportation Services

Telephone: 392-8750

--------

Table "A"

Removal of disabled on-street parking spaces

Ward Location

21 Perth Avenue, east side, from a point 32 metres north of Ernest Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: Ms. Lakeram Boodhoo of Premises No. 191 Perth Avenue, has advised that she has moved and that the space is no longer required.)

21 Randolph Avenue, north side, from a point 53 metres west of Perth Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further west.

(Mr. Leo McGillivray of Premises No. 4 Randolph Avenue has advised that the permit holder has moved and that the space is no longer required.)

Establishment of disabled on-street parking spaces

Ward Location

19 Cowan Avenue, west side, from a point 45.8 metres north of Springhurst Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further north,

(Source: Ms. Doris Faltash, a resident of Premises No. 17A Cowan Avenue)

26 Milverton Boulevard, south side, from a point 60 metres west of Linsmore Crescent to a point 5.5 metres further west.

(Source: Mr. Atalla Khalili, a resident of premises No. 251 Milverton Boulevard.)

Permit Parking on the North Side of

the First Lane North of Queen Street West

East of Crawford Street (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July 5, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on the introduction of overnight parking on the north side of the first lane north of Queen Street West, east of Crawford Street, on an area basis, within permit parking area 4H, to operate during the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommended that:

(1) permit parking be introduced on the north side of the first lane north of Queen Street West, east of Crawford Street, on an area basis, within permit parking area 4H, to operate during the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week;

(2) Schedule C of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, be amended to incorporate the first lane north of Queen Street West, east of Crawford Street; and

(3) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction of all necessary bills.

Background:

A request was received from Councillor Joe Pantalone, on behalf of the residents, to introduce overnight permit parking on the north side of the first lane north of Queen Street West, east of Crawford Street, on an area basis, within permit parking area 4H, to operate during the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Comments:

Under the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, we are required to conduct a poll of the residents to determine if there is support to introduce permit parking.

Ballots were mailed out on February 19, 1999, with the last date for filling a response being March 22, 1999. The results of the poll are as follows:

Polling Summary

Ballots cast opposed 2 in favour 7	9
No response	42
Returned by post office	4
Total ballots issued	55

The subject lane measures 4.2 metres wide at the narrowest point and 7.4 metres wide at the portion of the lane where parking is proposed. A field survey has determined that there are two (2) potential permit parking spaces available on the north side of this widened portion of the lane, after factoring in the 15 metre "No Parking" restriction from a dead end.

Conclusions:

The majority of the ballots returned are in favour of overnight permit parking on the north side of the first lane north of Queen Street West, east of Crawford Street. It is therefore, recommended that permit parking be introduced on the north side of the first lane north of Queen Street West, east of Crawford Street, on an area basis, within permit parking area 4H, to operate during the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Contact Name:

Lisa Forte

Telephone: 392-1801

Sale of City-Owned Former Railway

Spur Lands - 21 Richardson Street (Downtown)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 30, 1999) from the Chief Administrative Officer and Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To provide the Toronto Community Council with information on an Offer to Purchase received from Gemess Investments Limited for the sale of part of the City-owned property municipally known as 21 Richardson Street, adjacent to the northerly limit of 162 Queens Quay East and to recommend that the Offer be accepted.

Financial Implications:

Revenue in the amount of approximately $28,800.00, will be realized from the sale of this property.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Offer to Purchase from Gemess Investments Limited to purchase part of the City-owned property municipally known as 21 Richardson Street adjacent to the northerly limit of 162 Queens Quay, in the amount of approximately $28,800.00, including a deposit of $2,880.00, be accepted;

(2) the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to complete this transaction according to the terms and conditions of the Offer to Purchase and pay any expenses incurred by the City incidental to the closing transaction;

(3) the City Surveyor furnish the necessary legal description; and

(4) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect hereto.

Background:

In June 1995, the former City of Toronto acquired from the Toronto Harbour Commissioners four parcels of land comprising a former railway spur line known as Nos. 21 Richardson Street, 12 and 13 Bonnycastle Street and 11R Small Street (see attached Appendix 'A'). The former City of Toronto Board of Management, at its meeting of January 30, 1997, approved negotiations with the owners of lands abutting the subject railway spur lands. Negotiation resulted in three owners submitting Offers to Purchase Agreements for three different parts of the railway spur lands known as 13 Bonnycastle Street. At that time, no offers were submitted for the railway spur lands known as 21 Richardson Street. The remainder railway spur lands comprising 11R Small Street and 12 Bonnycastle Street were conveyed to the Toronto Economic Development Corporation, the abutting land owner.

The former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting on October 6, 1997 approved the sale of 13 Bonnycastle Street to the three abutting owners.

Comments:

The former rail spur land under discussion comprises a strip of land approximately 157 feet long with a perpendicular width of 18 feet for a total area of 2,880 square feet. It is currently zoned I2 D3 N1.5, a mixed industrial commercial zoning. The abutting property to the south is municipally known as 162 Queens Quay East and the property abutting to the north is municipally known as 215 Lake Shore Blvd. East.

The owner of 162 Queens Quay East, Gemess Investments Ltd., recently submitted an Offer to Purchase Agreement to acquire a portion of the City owned railway spur lands known as 21 Richardson Street. The owner has requested the total depth and length of the spur lands that abuts the northerly limit of his property at 162 Queens Quay East be conveyed to him instead of only one half of the former rail spur line abutting his property. The abutting owner to the north of the spur line has expressed no objection to the City of Toronto selling the total width of the railway spur under question to the owner of 162 Queens Quay East.

Recommended Offer:

I am prepared to recommend the following Offer To Purchase.

(1) Purchaser: Gemess Investments Ltd.

(2) Contact: Leneo E. Sdao

(3) Purchase price: $28,800.00

(4) Deposit: $2,880.00 (10%)

(5) Solicitor: Leneo E. Sdao

McCarthy Tetrault

Suite 4700, Toronto Dominion Bank Tower

Toronto-Dominion Centre,

Toronto, Ontario

M5K 1E6

(6) GST No. 101975969R

(7) Acceptance Date: August 6, 1999

(8) Closing Date: 15 Days following expiry of the Due Diligence period

The Offer Price of $28,800.00 is subject to area adjustment as stated in the Offer To Purchase Agreement "that the Purchaser will at its own expense prior to the expiration of the Due Diligence Period, prepare and deposit on title, a reference plan of the property being acquired. The Purchase Price shall be adjusted according to the actual square footage of the property as revealed by the Plan based on the rate of $10.00 per square foot of site area."

The Purchaser has requested that the standard 60 day Due Diligence period be lowered to 45 days, during which time the purchaser may conduct an environmental assessment on the property. As a condition to the Offer, the Purchaser has requested that if the purchaser's investigations disclose the existence of any sub-surface installations, Hazardous Substances or soil conditions which are not acceptable to the Purchaser (notwithstanding that they meet the Standard) and the cost of removal or remediation of same exceeds $10,000.00 in the aggregate, then the Purchaser may terminate this Agreement upon written notice at any time during the Due Diligence Period.

The offered price based on a rate of $10.00 per square foot of site area is considered indicative of current market value.

Conclusion:

I am of the opinion that the Offer to Purchase received from Gemess Investments Ltd. in the amount of $28,800.00 subject to area adjustment to be confirmed by survey, is acceptable.

Contact Name:

Peter Aziz

Telephone: 392-1856

Fax: 392-1880

e-mail: paziz@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

21 Richardson Street

Proposed Temporary

Hoarding - Vicinity of Yonge and Dundas

Intersection (Downtown)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To seek City Council's approval of a pilot project for a proposal to erect temporary signage containing third party advertising on the construction hoarding of the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project along the Yonge and Dundas Street frontages (Parcels A and D) and the Toronto Eaton Centre at the south west corner of Yonge and Dundas Streets.

Financial Implications:

It is estimated that a minimum of $150,000 in revenue for the City could be generated from this proposal which is to be credited to the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project Account No. 216692.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Council endorse the erection of temporary signage containing third party advertising on the construction hoarding of the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project along the Yonge and Dundas Street frontages (Parcels A and D) and the Toronto Eaton Centre at the south west corner of Yonge and Dundas Streets as a pilot project;

(2) the City enter into agreements with PenEquity Management Corporation and Cadillac Fairview Corporation with respect to the aforementioned lands, such agreements to contain such terms and conditions as are felt necessary by the City Commissioners of Urban Planning and Development Services, Works and Emergency Services, and Corporate Services to protect the City's interest including but not limited to prior approval of all commercial advertisements appearing on the hoarding;

(3) City Council grant an exemption from Metro By-laws 118 and 211-74 as amended to permit the signs on the hoarding on the aforementioned lands as a pilot project;

(4) authority be granted to introduce any necessary bills in Council; and

(5) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to undertake the steps necessary to give effect to the foregoing.

Background:

Parcels A and D of the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project on the east side of Yonge Street, north and south of Dundas Street East, are proceeding to the development stage. "Metropolis", a retail and multi-screen cinema building is being constructed by PenEquity Management Corporation on Parcel A north of Dundas Street. A 273-space underground parking garage and public square are being developed by the City and the Toronto Parking Authority on Parcel D south of Dundas Street.

The parcels have been hoarded for the purposes of securing the sites and allowing demolition to be undertaken prior to construction starting in the next few months.

Cadillac Fairview has undertaken Phase I of the Yonge Street facade reconstruction of the Toronto Eaton Centre from Queen Street to Trinity Way. Phase II of the reconstruction in the vicinity of the south west corner of Yonge and Dundas Streets is scheduled to commence in August with the erection of hoarding to secure the site for construction purposes.

The redevelopment sites are identified on the Key Map attached to this report.

Proposal:

Both PenEquity Management Corporation and Cadillac Fairview officials have approached the City about the opportunity to erect temporary signage containing third party advertising on portions of the construction hoarding to be installed for the redevelopment projects.

With respect to the east side of Yonge Street, the proposal is to erect a vertical extension to the existing hoarding structure to allow for a display area approximately 6 metres in height, beginning approximately 2.1 metres above grade. The display area would run the length of both sites on the east side of Yonge Street and on the north side of Dundas Street, which is approximately 180 metres long in total. With the erection of the hoarding within the sidewalk area to protect pedestrians, the display area will be parallel to the curb, set back approximately 0.5 metres.

The proposal on the west side of Yonge Street south of Dundas Street is similar. Approximately 120 metres of hoarding are planned although the area of potential signage will be focussed on the corner at Yonge and Dundas Streets.

Both proposals are outlined on the drawings and maps attached to this report.

The display areas would be used for third party advertising. The advertising would be large format, high quality stretch vinyl, lit with goose neck lights and likely advertise a limited number of products or services. The display area would be utilized for a period of approximately 18 months or until the projects near completion.

Non -compliance issues:

The use of Yonge and Dundas Streets for signage purposes is governed by former Metro By-law 118 and 211-74 as amended. The signage proposed for the hoarding is not permitted.

Considerations and potential mitigation:

(a) The intent of the revitalization initiatives now underway in the Yonge and Dundas area is to substantially increase the proportion and range of residents of the Greater Toronto Area who use downtown Yonge Street. The Official Plan and Community Improvement Plan for the area reflect this goal through policies which designate the area as a Prominent Area, a Priority Retail Street and a Reinvestment Area. The addition of large format, third party advertising signs is consistent with this policy approach.

(b) City Council has approved or is considering numerous minor variances for signs and Municipal Code amendments for signs in this area including media tower installations for both the Atrium and the Toronto Eaton Centre. The introduction of these sign opportunities further distinguishes this area as one where large format signage and third party advertising is characteristic and adds to the exciting and experiential image of the area.

(c) There will be no impact on residential development as the signs will be within 8.1 metres of grade and located on frontages which are not visible from residential development in the vicinity.

(d) Given the intent of the advertising to attract attention, the proximity of the signage display area to the street and the intersection is a concern with respect to vehicle and pedestrian safety. One method of mitigating the impact would be to review the images and copy on the advertising to ensure it is presented in a manner which minimizes the impact to vehicles and pedestrians at the intersections.

(e) The advertising itself should not resemble an official traffic signal, traffic sign or other traffic regulating device.

(f) First party advertising signage is permitted on construction hoarding and has been used in retail and reinvestment areas to build excitement and awareness. Third party advertising of retail products which may be sold in the area, for example, will also serve the purpose of building excitement and awareness.

(g) As a pilot project, third party advertising of a temporary nature on construction hoarding at Yonge and Dundas Streets represents a unique situation which is well suited to the environment in this particular area. This is not considered precedent setting because of these circumstances.

Works and Emergency Services staff have been consulted with respect to this proposal and the matters outlined in this report.

Conclusion

It is recommended that proposals for temporary signage containing third party advertising on the construction hoarding of the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project and the Toronto Eaton Centre be endorsed by Council as a pilot project. An agreement with the parties is recommended which will provide the City with the right to review, approve or refuse the advertising and earn revenue for the purposes of off-setting other costs associated with the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project.

Staff Contact:

Gregg Lintern, Senior Planner

South District, East Section

Community Planning

Telephone: 392-7363

Fax: 392-1330

E-mail: glintern@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Yonge and Dundas Intersection

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Yonge and Dundas Intersection

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Yonge and Dundas Intersection

Insert Table/Map No. 4

Yonge and Dundas Intersection

Temporal Adjustments to existing traffic/parking

regulations on streets in the vicinity of Exhibition

Place during these events - Annual Caribana and

Canadian National Exhibition (Trinity-Niagara and High Park)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) Appendix B of the report (July 2, 1999) of the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, be amended to prohibit standing on Fleet Street, both sides, at anytime Monday to Friday and prohibit stopping at anytime on Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays, from Friday, August 20, 1999 to Monday, September 6, 1999 inclusive;

(2) the report (July 2, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, as amended, be adopted; and

(3) the tow-away area in South Parkdale be strictly enforced during these annual events.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 2, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To enhance traffic operation and pedestrian safety during this year's Caribana (July 31, August 1, and 2, 1999) and Canadian National Exhibition (August 20 to September 6, 1999).

Recommendations:

(1) That in order to implement the temporal traffic/parking regulations on streets in the vicinity of Exhibition Place which are impacted during the annual Caribana and Canadian National Exhibition, the recommendations noted in appendix "A" and "B", of this report be approved; and

(2) That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any bills that may be required.

Comments:

Annually, Works and Emergency Services staff implement a number of traffic and parking regulations on various streets in the vicinity of Exhibition Place which are impacted by events such as Caribana and the Canadian National Exhibition.

Having regard for the high volume of vehicle and pedestrian traffic generated during these events, the temporal traffic/parking regulations as shown on the attached table "A" (Caribana) and attached table "B" (Canadian National Exhibition) will help maintain safe and efficient traffic conditions in the general area while recognizing the impacts on local residents. Although Caribana takes place over a three day period, the second and third days of the event take place on the Toronto Island and so do not impact on the operation of the local road system.

City Council at its meeting of May 11 and 12, had before it a motion from Councillor Moscoe, recommending the adoption of a report dated April 23, 1999, from the Toronto Transit Commission. In considering the above motion and report, Council requested that the General Manager of Transportation Services coordinate the implementation of the Exhibition Place/Ontario Place Traffic Management Plan, and report regarding the implementation of a Traffic Management Plan for the Canadian National Exhibition.

A working group comprised of representatives of the T.T.C., Toronto Police Service (14 Division and Traffic Services), Exhibition Place, Ontario Place and Transportation Services has been responsible for implementing the "Transit First" traffic management plan for the Symphony of Fire event dates thus far; June 19, 26 and 30.

To date the T.T.C. has realized significant reductions in round trip times for the Bathurst streetcar. Staff of the T.T.C. have advised that an average daytime round trip, Exhibition Place to Bathurst Station and back, for the Bathurst streetcar is approximately 40 minutes. Prior to the implementation of this plan, round trip times on event nights have been as high as 160 minutes. Round trip times on event nights since the "Transit First" plan has been implemented have been reduced to 50 minutes on average.

Ontario Place and Exhibition Place staff have advised that their on-site parking facilities have never cleared as fast as they do now under this plan.

Additionally, where traffic had previously remained gridlocked until as late as 2:00 a.m. on event nights, normal traffic operations have resumed by 12:15 a.m. on average. This is due in large part to the presence of Police officers at key intersections, additional parking enforcement officers with tow-trucks patrolling Lake Shore Boulevard and the use of our freeway management system, RESCUE.

Closure of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway off-ramps, eastbound at the Lake Shore Boulevard split, Jameson Avenue, and Spadina Avenue, and westbound at Spadina Avenue and Dunn Avenue, have been done on an as-needed basis to ensure Emergency Service Vehicle access into the Ontario Place/Exhibition Place Area. This measure has been successful in maintaining access for these vehicles while responding to emergency calls in this area.

The working group noted above continues to meet after each event night and modify this traffic management plan as needed. A modified version of the "Transit First" plan is currently being developed for use during the Canadian National Exhibition as necessary. Consultation with the affected area Councillors and their constituency will also be part of the development process for this modified plan.

Contact Name:

S. Burk, Co-ordinator, Transportation Services

Telephone: 392-8750

--------

Appendix "A"

Traffic Regulation Associated with the Caribana

Insert the following:

§400-82 - Schedule XXIX - No Standing

Highway Side Between Prohibited Times and Days

Fleet Street both Bathurst Street and Strachan Avenue 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on

July 31, 1999

--------

Appendix "B"

Traffic Regulation Associated with the Canadian Nation Exhibition

Insert the following:

§400-54 - Schedule I - One-way Highways

Highway Between Times or Days Direction

Springhurst Avenue Dufferin Street and Tyndall Avenue (east branch) Anytime, from and including Fri., Aug. 20, 1999, to and including Mon., Sept. 6, 1999 From east to west

Insert the following

§400-61 - Schedule VIII - Prohibited Turns

Intersection on Portion of Road Direction Turns Prohibited Times or Days

Springhurst Avenue and Jameson Avenue Westbound Left 7:00 a.m to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mon. to Fri. from and including Fri., Aug. 20, 1999 to and including Mon., Sept. 6, 1999

Strachan Avenue between Fleet Street and Lake Shore boulevard West Northbound and Southbound U-turn Anytime, from and including Fri., Aug. 20, 1999 to and including Mon., September 6, 1999

Insert the following

§400-76 - Schedule XXIII - No Parking Certain Times

Highway Side Between Prohibited Times or Days

Cowan Avenue West Springhurst Avenue and the south end Anytime, from and including Fri., Aug. 20, 1999, to and including Mon., Sept. 6, 1999

Dufferin Street East Exhibition Park and Queen Street West Anytime, from and including Fri., Aug. 20, 1999, to and including Mon. Sept. 6, 1999

Dufferin Street West Exhibition Park and a point 36.6 metres north of Springhurst Avenue Anytime, from and including Fri., Aug. 20, 1999, to and including Mon., Sept. 6, 1999

Dufferin Street West King Street West and Queen Street West Anytime, from and including Fri. Aug. 20, 1999, to and including Mon., Sept. 6, 1999

Fleet Street Both Strachan Avenue and Bathurst Street Anytime, from and including Fri., Aug. 20, 1999, to and including Mon. Sept. 6, 1999

Fort Rouille Street Both Springhurst Avenue and the south end Anytime, from and including Fri., Aug. 20, 1999, to and including Mon. Sept. 6, 1999

Gladstone Avenue West Queen Street West and Peel Street Anytime, from and including Fri., Aug. 20, 1999, to and including Mon. Sept. 6, 1999

Jameson Avenue East Springhurst Avenue and Queen Street West Anytime, from and including Fri., Aug. 20, 1999 to and including Mon., September 6, 1999

Peel Avenue Both Dufferin Street and Gladstone Avenue Anytime, from and including Fri. Aug. 20, 1999, to and including Mon. Sept. 6, 1999

Spencer Avenue East Springhurst Avenue and the south end Anytime, from and including Fri. Aug. 20, 1999, to and including Mon. Sept. 6, 1999

Springhurst Avenue North Dufferin Street and Jameson Avenue Anytime, from and including Fri., Aug. 20, 1999 to and including Mon., Sept. 6, 1999

Tyndall Avenue East Thornburn Avenue and the south end Anytime, from and including Fri. Aug. 20, 1999, to and including Mon. Sept. 6, 1999

Insert the following

§400-78 - Schedule XXV - Time Limit Parking

Highway Side Between Times or Days Maximum Period Permitted

Cowan Avenue West King Street West and Queen Street West 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. from and including Fri. Aug. 20, 1999, to and including Mon. Sept. 6, 1999 60 mins.

Melbourne Avenue North Cowan Avenue and Dufferin Street 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. from and including Fri. August 20, 1999 to and including Mon. Sept. 6, 1999 60 mins.

Insert the following

§400-85 - Schedule XXXII - Taxicab Stands

Highway Side Location Number of Taxicabs Hours

Dufferin Street West A point 36.6 metres north of Springhurst Avenue and a point 29 metres south of King Street West 29 Anytime, from and including Fri. Aug. 20, 1999, to and including Mon. Sept. 6, 1999

Strachan Avenue West A point 6.1 metres south of Manitoba Drive and a point 73.2 metres further south 12 Anytime, from and including Fri. Aug. 20, 1999, to and including Mon. Sept. 6, 1999

Proposed Installation of Speed Humps -

Orchard View Boulevard, from Edith Drive

to Duplex Avenue (North Toronto)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that

(1) approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Orchard View Boulevard, from Edith Drive to Duplex Avenue, for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to favourable results to the polling of residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on ORCHARD VIEW BOULEVARD, from Edith Drive to Duplex Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5403, dated June 1999";

(2) a speed limit of 30 kilometres per hour be introduced on Orchard View Boulevard, from Edith Drive to Duplex Avenue, coinciding with the implementation of speed humps and as legislation permits; and

(3) the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect thereto including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 7, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report as requested by the Toronto Community Council on a plan to reduce the speed of motor vehicles on Orchard View Boulevard, from Edith Drive to Duplex Avenue, by the introduction of speed humps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of April 28, 1999, in considering a communication (April 26, 1999) from North Toronto Councillor Michael Walker, requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report on the feasibility of installing speed humps on Orchard View Boulevard between Edith Drive and Duplex Avenue (Clause 60(y) of Report No. 7 of the Toronto Community Council, adopted by City Council at its meeting of May 11 and 12, 1999).

Comments:

Transportation Services' staff have reviewed traffic conditions on Orchard View Boulevard in order to report to Council on the feasibility of installing speed humps to reduce the speed of motor vehicles on this street.

Orchard View Boulevard between Duplex Avenue and Edith Drive is classified as a residential street which operates two-way on a pavement width of 8.5 m with a speed limit of 50 km/h. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the north side and parking is permitted on the south side to a maximum period of one hour from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., daily and the permit parking system is in effect from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., daily.

Speed and volume surveys were conducted over two days at the end of April, 1999, which revealed that about 1,900 vehicles use this portion of Orchard View Boulevard daily, travelling at an average speed of 38 km/h, with an average operating speed (the speed at which 85 percent of the traffic travels at or below) of 48 km/h. Approximately 170 (4.4 percent) vehicles per day travelled in excess of 55 km/h.

A review of the accident occurrence records as reported by Toronto Police Services at this location has revealed that from November 30, 1995 until November 30, 1998, there were two accidents at a midblock location on Orchard View Boulevard, only one of which may have had speed as a contributing factor (it was a side-swipe accident on a rainy day, the other accident involved a motorist, backing out of a driveway, hitting a parked car).

Orchard View Boulevard between Duplex Avenue and Edith Drive is a block of approximately 200 m in length and the above data does not indicate the presence of a speeding problem, and in fact, exhibits a typical speed profile for this type of street and of streets in the general area. In light of the above, it is not recommended that speed humps be installed on this portion of Orchard View Boulevard.

Notwithstanding the above and in consideration that the primary criteria for the installation of speed humps have been technically satisfied, should Toronto Community Council wish to proceed with the installation of speed humps on the subject section of Orchard View Boulevard, the following recommendations should be adopted:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Orchard View Boulevard, from Edith Drive to Duplex Avenue, for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to favourable results to the polling of residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on ORCHARD VIEW BOULEVARD, from Edith Drive to Duplex Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5403, dated June 1999";

(2) That a speed limit of 30 kilometres per hour be introduced on Orchard View Boulevard, from Edith Drive to Duplex Avenue, coinciding with the implementation of speed humps and as legislation permits; and

(3) That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect thereto including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

The traffic calming proposal, as illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5403, dated June 1999, consists of three speed humps, with an estimated installation cost of $4,500.00, funds for which are available under the Transportation Services Division 1999 Capital Budget. A speed limit reduction to 30 kilometres per hour would be appropriate. If this proposal were to be implemented, no impacts on parking would be anticipated, no changes to parking regulations would be required, and the effect on snow removal, street cleaning and garbage collection would be minimal.

As stipulated in the Policy, once it has been determined that speed hump installation is technically warranted, a formal poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected section of the street, and also of households on side streets whose only access is from the street under consideration for speed hump installation. Under this policy, at least 60 percent of those responding should be in favour of the proposal to authorize implementation. Accordingly, subject to approval by your Council of the above recommendations, Transportation Services' staff will conduct a poll of residents and report on the results at the deputation meeting for the project.

The changes proposed to Orchard View Boulevard as set out above constitute alterations to public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. Accordingly, the intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to public hearing. It is noted that emergency services are being advised of the proposal to ensure the proposal does not unduly hamper their operations. However, the introduction of speed humps would result in slower operating speeds for all vehicles, including emergency vehicles, resulting in increased response times.

This project would be pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for the Municipal Roads Project.

It is estimated that this project would cost approximately $4,500.00, funds for which available under the Transportation Services Division 1999 Capital Budget.

Contact Name:

Michael J. Harris, Supervisor

Traffic Engineering,

District 1, Central Area.

Telephone: (416) 392-7711

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Orchard View Boulevard

Proposed Installation of Speed Humps -

Briar Hill Avenue between Avenue Road

and Yonge Street (North Toronto)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 25, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on Briar Hill Avenue between Avenue Road and Yonge Street by the introduction of speed humps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of the installation of the speed humps on Briar Hill Avenue in the estimated amount of $18,000.00 are available under the Transportation Services Division 1999 Capital Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Briar Hill Avenue between Avenue Road and Yonge Street for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to favourable results of the polling of affected residents pursuant to the policy related to speed humps as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on BRIAR HILL AVENUE between Avenue Road and Yonge Street, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5309, dated May 1999";

(2) That a speed limit of 30 kilometres per hour be introduced on Briar Hill Avenue between Avenue Road and Yonge Street coinciding with the implementation of speed humps and as legislation permits; and

(3) That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect thereto including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

Comments:

At the request of the Briar Hill Traffic Committee and in consultation with Ward 22 Councillors Anne Johnston and Michael Walker, Transportation Services' staff have investigated the feasibility of installing speed humps on Briar Hill Avenue to reduce speed of motor vehicles.

Briar Hill Avenue is a local residential street with a two-way operation and a daily weekday traffic flow of about 1,500 vehicles towards the Avenue Road end and about 2,000 vehicles toward the Duplex Avenue end. The speed limit is 40 km/h between Duplex Avenue and Avenue Road and 50 km/h between Yonge Street and Duplex Avenue. The pavement width is uniform at 8.5 m and the following parking regulations are in effect:

North side

(i) Parking is prohibited at anytime between Yonge Street and Rosewell Avenue;

(ii) Permit Parking is in effect from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily between Avenue Road and Rosewell Avenue; and

(iii) Parking is otherwise permitted to a maximum of 3 hours.

South side

(iv) Parking is prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., Monday to Friday between Duplex Avenue and Rosewell Avenue;

(vi) Parking is permitted for a maximum period of 60 minutes from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily between Yonge Street and Duplex Avenue;

(vi) Permit Parking is in effect from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily between Avenue Road and Rosewell Avenue; and

(vii) Parking is otherwise permitted to a maximum of 3 hours.

Speed studies conducted on Briar Hill Avenue between Avenue Road and Birdsall Avenue over a three day period in November 1998 revealed a weekday average speed of 46 km/h, an operating speed (speed at which 85 percent of the daily traffic travels at or under) of 58 km/h and that 22 percent of the vehicles travelled in excess of 55 km/h. Between Duplex Avenue and Rosewell Avenue, the average speed was 44 km/h, the operating speed was 54 km/h and 13 percent of the vehicles travelled in excess of 55 km/h.

To be consistent with the former City of Toronto's Speed Hump Policy, two speed humps per block could be installed on each of the short blocks and four speed humps per block on the longer blocks. The proposed locations for the 12 speed humps are generally shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5309, dated May 1999.

In light of the above and apparent support evident at the public meeting convened by the Ward Councillors and attended by Transportation staff, on May 5, 1999, it is recommended that the residents be polled to determine the level of community support for the speed hump proposal as outlined above.

The installation of speed humps on Briar Hill Avenue constitute an alteration to public highways pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. This project is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.

Contact Name:

Michael J. Harris, Supervisor

Traffic Engineering

Telephone: 392-7711

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Briar Hill Avenue

Installation of Speed Humps - Sherwood Avenue

from Yonge Street to Mount Pleasant Road

(North Toronto)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that

(1) approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Sherwood Avenue, from Yonge Street to Mount Pleasant Road, for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on SHERWOOD AVENUE, from Yonge Street to Mount Pleasant Road, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 42IF-5407, dated June 1999."

(2) a speed limit of thirty kilometres per hour be introduced on Sherwood Avenue, from Yonge Street to Mount Pleasant Road, coincident with the implementation of speed humps and as legislation permits; and

(3) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take whatever action is necessary to implement the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that might be required.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 6, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To respond to a request from the former City of Toronto City Services Committee to report on a review of the traffic calming measures on Sherwood Avenue, from Yonge Street to Mount Pleasant Road, implemented in 1997, and to a request from Councillor Michael Walker to report on the feasibility of installing speed humps on this street to further reduce the speed of motor vehicles.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

The former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting of September 22 and 23, 1997, in adopting Clause No. 46 contained in Report No. 11 of the City Services Committee, titled "Alteration of Sherwood Avenue Between Yonge Street and Mount Pleasant Road (Ward 16)", received a draft by-law to authorize the alteration of the subject section of Sherwood Avenue by the installation of precast modular roadway narrowing devices, approved the implementation of island/staggered parking on Sherwood Avenue as a traffic calming measure to reduce the speed of traffic on this street, and requested that Transportation Services staff report back with a review of these traffic calming initiatives.

Comments:

In 1996, a group of residents of Sherwood Avenue, between Yonge Street and Mount Pleasant Road, forwarded a petition to then Ward 16 Councillor Michael Walker requesting that measures be taken to reduce the speed of traffic on this street. Transportation Services' staff worked with Councillor Walker and representatives of the residents to develop a traffic calming plan to create selective roadway narrowings using precast, modular concrete islands and planters. Staff reported on this plan to the City Services Committee (Clause No. 13 contained in Report No. 7 of the City Services Committee, adopted by City of Toronto Council at its meeting of June 2 and 3, 1997) wherein approval was given to undertake the statutory advertising campaign and to have residents notified of the required public hearing into this matter which was held by the City Services Committee at its meeting of June 25, 1997. As a result of objections received from deputants, the original traffic calming plan was not adopted and staff were requested to report on a new traffic calming plan using an "island parking" and "staggered parking" arrangement. Subsequently, Councillor Walker held a public meeting with area residents to further discuss traffic calming options. The result of all the foregoing was the adoption by City Council of the above noted Clause wherein an island/staggered parking arrangement was implemented on Sherwood Avenue.

By letter dated November 19, 1998, Councillor Walker forwarded to Transportation Services a copy of a petition from residents of Sherwood Avenue wherein they voiced their concerns about the continuing problem of speeding vehicles on their street and requested that consideration be given to the installation of speed humps on this street.

The subject section of Sherwood Avenue operates two-way on a pavement width of 8.5 metres with a maximum speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Permit parking is in effect from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., daily, on both sides of Sherwood Avenue, from Yonge Street to Mount Pleasant Road, with "staggered parking" and "island parking" in place as a form of traffic calming.

Transportation Services' staff conducted a 24-hour speed and volume survey in March of this year on the subject section of Sherwood Avenue over a four-day period. The results of the survey revealed a combined daily total of 1,828 vehicles in both directions during the midweek period, of which 1,741 (95 percent) travelled at a rate of speed of 55 kilometres per hour or less and 86 (5 percent) travelled at a rate of speed in excess of 55 kilometres per hour. The operating speed (the speed at or below which 85 percent of the vehicles travelled) for the midweek period was 48 kilometres per hour with an average speed of 41 kilometres per hour.

These results were compared with the results of similar studies conducted by staff in February of 1996, prior to the implementation of the existing traffic calming measures. At that time, Sherwood Avenue carried a combined daily total of 2,020 vehicles of which 165 (8 percent) travelled in excess of 55 kilometres per hour. Compared to the most recent surveys, this excessive speeding was reduced from 8 percent of all traffic in 1996 to 5 percent in 1999. The operating speed (85^th percentile) was reduced from 52 kilometres per hour in 1996 to 48 kilometres per hour in 1999 and the average speed was reduced from 42 kilometres per hour to 41 kilometres per hour.

It would appear that the implementation of the island/staggered parking on the subject section of Sherwood Avenue has been successful in reducing the incidences of high end speeding (that is, vehicles travelling in excess of 55 kilometres per hour). Further, the operating speed and the average speed of all motor vehicles travelling on Sherwood Avenue have both experienced minor reductions.

These speed profiles do not indicate that there is a high level of speeding on this street, considering that the speed limit is 40 kilometres per hour. In fact, the volume of traffic using Sherwood Avenue and the speeds travelled are lower than many other streets in the vicinity. Based upon the above analysis, and taking into consideration the fact that the implementation of island/staggered parking has had a positive impact in reducing speeds on this street, no further action is recommended at this time.

Notwithstanding the above and bearing in mind that the primary criteria for the installation of speed humps have been technically satisfied, should Toronto Community Council wish to proceed with the installation of speed humps on the subject section of Sherwood Avenue, then the following recommendations should be adopted:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Sherwood Avenue, from Yonge Street to Mount Pleasant Road, for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on SHERWOOD AVENUE, from Yonge Street to Mount Pleasant Road, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 42IF-5407, dated June 1999."

(2) That a speed limit of thirty kilometres per hour be introduced on Sherwood Avenue, from Yonge Street to Mount Pleasant Road, coincident with the implementation of speed humps and as legislation permits; and

(3) That the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take whatever action is necessary to implement the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that might be required.

The traffic calming proposal, as illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. 42IF-5407, dated June 1999, consists of seven speed humps with spacings of between 45 to 90 metres. A speed limit reduction to 30 kilometres per hour would be appropriate. No impacts on parking are anticipated, no changes to parking regulations are required, and the effects on snow removal, street cleaning and garbage collection should be minimal.

As stipulated in the Policy, once it has been determined that speed hump installation is technically warranted, a formal poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected section of the street, and also of households on side streets whose only access is from the street under consideration for speed hump installations. Under this policy, at least 60 percent of those responding should be in favour of the proposal to authorize implementation. Accordingly, subject to approval by your Council of the above recommendations, Transportation Services' staff will conduct a poll of residents and report on the results at the deputation meeting for the project.

The changes proposed to Sherwood Avenue, as described above, constitute an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. The intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. Again, subject to your Council's approval of the above recommendations, consultations with the emergency services will be undertaken to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their respective operations. However, the introduction of speed humps would result in slower operating speeds for all vehicles, including emergency vehicles, resulting in increased response times.

This project would be pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for the Municipal Roads Project.

It is estimated that the cost to implement this proposal is $15,400.00, funds for which are available in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Capital Budget.

Contact Name:

Randy Hillis, Traffic Investigator

Telephone: (416) 392-7771

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Sherwood Avenue

City Boulevard Adjoining Premises

No. 53 Nanton Avenue (Midtown)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, amended this Clause, by inserting the word "chronic" after the word "solving" in Recommendation No. (2) of the Toronto Community Council, so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(2) given the Works and Emergency Services Department's boulevard improvement program is geared to solving chronic problem areas, the Ward Councillors be notified of any such chronic problem areas and any requests for boulevard improvement;".)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the concrete and rock boulevard at 53 Nanton Avenue be removed;

(2) given the Works and Emergency Services Department's boulevard improvement program is geared to solving problem areas, the Ward Councillors be notified of any such chronic problem areas and any requests for boulevard improvement; and

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report directly to Council on:

(1) the feasibility of planting trees on the boulevard at 53 Nanton Avenue; and

(2) whether the abutting home owner would consider planting a low hedge.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 6, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To respond to a Toronto Community Council request to report on the circumstances respecting the installation of a concrete treatment on a portion of the boulevard adjoining Premises No. 53 Nanton Avenue, this treatment's conformity to City Council's guidelines considering open and green space and landscaping, notification requirements concerning such boulevard projects, and lastly, to report on the advisability of installing a City Sidewalk in the area.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A.

Recommendation:

That the Toronto Community Council direct staff regarding the disposition of the concrete and rock boulevard treatment at Premises No. 53 Nanton Avenue, based on the options set out in the text of this report.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of June 22, 1999, in considering a communication from Councillor John Adams of the same date requested Works and Emergency Services staff to report on (Clause No. 49(l) of Report No. 9 of the Toronto Community Council):

(1) The circumstances surrounding the rock and concrete treatment authorized by staff on the City boulevard at 53 Nanton Avenue flanking Castle Frank Road, and advise on how this treatment conforms with the City's policy on landscaping, open and green space, and why notice was not given to the Ward Councillors as is the practice when a request is made by a property owner to change or use the City boulevard, or portion thereof, for their own purposes, and/or benefit; and

(2) The advisability of installing a City sidewalk in the area.

Comments:

Staff of Works and Emergency Services were approached by the owner of Premises No. 53 Nanton Avenue with concerns about the condition of a portion of the grassed City boulevard adjoining her property and more particularly her ability to maintain this area on an ongoing basis. The property is located at the southeast corner of Nanton Avenue and Castle Frank Avenue. A sidewalk extends along the Castle Frank Avenue flankage, but terminates at the corner and does not extend to the Nanton Avenue frontage. This fronting boulevard is sod right up to the curb. Upon investigation staff determined that due to the corner location and termination of the sidewalk there is a tendency by pedestrians to "cut the corner". Signs of dog fouling, etc., were evident. Accordingly, the concern expressed by the resident had some merit.

Under long standing City policy the responsibility for the maintenance, repair and/or improvement of boulevards rests with the abutting property owner. However, limited funds are authorized by City Council to carry out improvements to boulevards on a request basis that are subject to chronic pedestrian, vehicular or other forms of physical abuse, beyond the reasonable capability of the abutting property owners to undertake repeated restoration. This programme has been in place since the early 1970's. In the earlier years, more significant funding was allocated, however, over the past several years this has been cut back ($10,000.00 in 1999) allowing a few locations each year to be tended to.

Since the subject boulevard falls into this category and accordingly, for reasons of economy and permanently improving the condition of this boulevard over the long term, various low maintenance treatments, including concrete or paver surfaces, or fencing were discussed with the home owner. In the end, the resident firmly held the view that a concrete surface, enhanced with the placement of decorative rocks in the surface was the desirable treatment. The resident paid the incremental cost for the enhancement. The total area paved at the corner of the boulevard, behind the sidewalk is about 32 square meters, which is a small proportion of the remaining sod boulevard and lawn.

Given the nature of the problems that this boulevard programme is geared toward solving (i.e. areas subject to chronic abuse) and the relatively small areas involved, there is no contravention of City open or green space policies. Of course, it is desirable to maintain as much soft landscape space as possible, however, in these instances keeping the areas in acceptable repair can be very difficult. As well, because of the minor extent of these jobs, there is no requirement nor usually is there a need for formal notification. While the vast majority of such work over the years has generated no outside interest or concern, unfortunately in this particular case other area residents have indicated that they strongly object to the treatment.

At this time, the abutting homeowner is satisfied with the work, while others in the area are equally adamant that the treatment should be removed. During the initial discussions with the homeowner, fencing the area with a low fence was suggested, but not accepted. The following provides a number of options that may be considered:

(i) leave the concrete and rock boulevard treatment as is;

(ii) remove the paved boulevard, refund the resident's contribution and restore the sod. Under this option, the boulevard would be susceptible to the previous problems, although the homeowner would have the option of applying to the City to install a low fence; or

(iii) remove the concrete and rock boulevard, refund the resident's contribution and replace with a different hard surface treatment (i.e. unit pavers, concrete).

With respect to extending the sidewalk along Nanton Avenue, there has been insufficient time to evaluate this measure. Staff will communicate with the Ward Councillors on completion of our review.

Contact Name:

John Chivers-Wilson, Programmes Assistant

Infrastructure Asset Management and Programming

Transportation Services Division

Telephone: 392-7711

Purpose:

To respond to a request of the Toronto Community Council to report directly to City Council at its meeting of July 27, 1999, on the feasibility of specific landscape measures on the city boulevard adjacent to No. 53 Nanton Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

Toronto Community Council, in considering a report (July 6, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, recommended that the recently installed concrete and rock boulevard section at 53 Nanton Avenue be removed and that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report directly to Council at its meeting of July 27, 1999, on:

(i) the feasibility of planting trees on the boulevard at 53 Nanton Avenue; and

(ii) whether the abutting home owner would consider planting a low hedge

Comments:

In the short interval since the Community Council meeting, staff have not had an opportunity to consult on the specifics with Urban Forestry officials in order to fully address the questions noted above.

Based on a very cursory review, it appears feasible to plant additional trees on the boulevard. It is noted that there is currently a small tree already growing in this vicinity. As noted in the July 6, 1999, report, the idea of planting a hedge or placing a low fence was raised with the homeowner, however, she was insistent that the paved area should be provided. Staff have spoken to her subsequently and her views have not changed.

Typically, the City would not install a tree on boulevard adjoining a private residence if the homeowner objects. With respect to hedges, the City does not install this type of landscaping. It is suggested that in the event Council directs the removal of the paved boulevard, staff of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with Urban Forestry advise the Ward Councillors of available alternatives for this space to attempt to achieve an acceptable compromise.

Contact Name:

John Chivers-Wilson

Programme Assistant

Telephone: 398-6254)

Proposed Relocation of Traffic Control Signals -

The Queensway at Glendale Avenue (High Park)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July 8, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To relocate the existing mid-block pedestrian traffic control signals, streetcar stops and platforms on The Queensway (presently located in front of St. Joseph's Health Centre) approximately 50 metres to the west, to the intersection of The Queensway and Glendale Avenue.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with traffic signals installations are contained in the Works and Emergency Services Capital Programme under Project No. C-TR031. In 1999, $1.6 million has been allocated for traffic control signal installations. These funds have been fully committed already through the approvals of 21 new signal installations. Therefore, unless additional funding is identified in 1999, signal approvals for the balance of 1999 will be placed on a priority list for 2000 and await approval of the appropriate budget item in the 2000 Capital Budget. The estimated cost of the relocation of the existing traffic control signals and civil elements (relocation of streetcar stops, platforms, and median island) on The Queensway to Glendale Avenue is $150,000. This installation is subject to competing priorities.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) subject to the availability of funding, the existing mid-block pedestrian traffic control signals, streetcar stops and platforms be installed on The Queensway at Glendale Avenue;

(2) The City Solicitor be authorized to submit a road alteration by-law for the intersection of The Queensway at Glendale Avenue for alteration of the curb radii on the north side, installation of a median on the west leg, and relocation of both streetcar platforms to the east side of Glendale Avenue, generally as shown in the attached plan SK-2229 dated July 1999;

(3) concurrent with this traffic control signal relocation, north-south pedestrian crossings be prohibited between Glendale Avenue and a point 30.5 metres west thereof; and

(4) the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.

Discussion:

At the present time, traffic control signals are provided across only the westbound lanes of The Queensway for pedestrians to travel between the streetcar platforms and the entrance to St. Joseph's Health Centre.

The intersection of The Queensway and Glendale Avenue is located approximately 50 metres to the west of the existing pedestrian signals, at the westerly end of St. Joseph's Health Centre. Glendale Avenue, a two-way residential roadway, forms the north leg of a "T"-intersection with The Queensway.

Our observations at this intersection indicate that southbound motorists on Glendale Avenue experience delays waiting to turn onto The Queensway. These delays are primarily attributed to insufficient gaps in the east-west traffic flow, the horizontal curvature and vertical grade of The Queensway, in the vicinity of Glendale Avenue, which results in reduced sightlines. Collision statistics provided by Toronto Police Services over a five-year period revealed that there were six collisions of a type considered potentially preventable by the installation of traffic signals. Each of these six collisions involved a southbound motorist turning onto The Queensway from Glendale Avenue and a westbound motorist on The Queensway. During the same time period, there was one collision involving a pedestrian at the existing mid-block pedestrian traffic signals on The Queensway, in front of St. Joseph's Health Centre. This particular collision occurred while the patron was crossing The Queensway after alighting a streetcar.

Based on pedestrian and vehicle traffic volumes, the warrants for the installation of traffic control signals are satisfied at the intersection of The Queensway and Glendale Avenue to the following extent:

Warrant 1: Minimum Vehicular Volume 35 percent;

Warrant 2: Delay to Cross Traffic 100 percent; and

Warrant 3: Collision Hazard 33 percent.

Either Warrant 1 or Warrant 2 must be satisfied to 100 percent, or any two of the three warrants must be satisfied to 80 percent for traffic control signals to be technically satisfied at this location.

The relocation of the existing mid-block pedestrian traffic signals to the intersection of The Queensway and Glendale Avenue would necessitate the relocation of the existing streetcar stops and platforms. In order to ensure that an equitable level of service to transit patrons is provided, the westbound streetcar stop will be placed near-side of Glendale Avenue and the eastbound stop will be placed far-side of Glendale Avenue. Also, the traffic signal operation will require modifications to the geometry to the north side of the intersection and installation of a small median island on the west leg. Further consultation will be done with the Toronto Transit Commission, St. Joseph's Health Centre and the Ward Councillors to finalize this intersection design. However, preliminary estimates indicate that the civil work would cost approximately $50,000.00.

We have advised the Toronto Transit Commission of our proposal and they are not opposed to our recommendations. Also, we have consulted with Councillors Chris Korwin-Kuczynski and David Miller and they support this proposal.

Conclusions:

Traffic control signals should be installed, coincident with the removal of the existing mid-block pedestrian control signals and relocating the existing streetcar stops and platforms, at the intersection of The Queensway and Glendale Avenue to improve the operational safety for pedestrians and motorists.

Contact Name:

J. White

Manager

Traffic Operations

Telephone: 392-5021

Insert Table/Map No. 1

The Queensway at Glendale Ave

Narrowing of the Pavement on

Dufferin Street north of CNE Grounds

(Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July 7, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To authorize the narrowing of the pavement on Dufferin Street through the creation of widened sidewalks to improve pedestrian amenities and facilitate the planting of trees.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of the work, in the estimated amount of $200,000.00 are available in the Urban Planning and Development Services and the Works and Emergency Services 1999 Capital Accounts.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to narrow the pavement on Dufferin Street as follows:

"The realignment and narrowing of the pavement on DUFFERIN STREET from a width of 14.4 m to a width of 11.0 m from a point 28.5 m south of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway Bridge to a point 75 m further north thereof ."; and

(2) That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect thereto including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

Comments:

The Board of Governors of Exhibition Place, in connection with ongoing infrastructure improvement work within the CNE grounds, have developed a plan of streetscape improvements in the vicinity of the Dufferin Gates, including a minor narrowing of the pavement and landscaping improvements on the Dufferin Street Bridge over the F. G. Gardiner Expressway.

The work within the Dufferin Street right-of-way includes a minor narrowing of the pavement and corresponding creation of inner boulevards, the installation of planters back of curb, and the removal of the existing barriers along the centre line of the street for the full extent of the structure.

Dufferin Street from a point 28.5 m south of the F. G. Expressway Bridge to a point 75m further north functions as a arterial road and carries two-way north and southbound traffic, with a pavement width of 14.4 m. No parking is allowed on this section of the Street.

The work, as shown on the Attached print of Drawing No. SK-2226 June 1999, and described in Recommendation No. 1 above, will not adversely affect the functioning of traffic on the street.

The narrowing of the pavement on Dufferin Street constitutes an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act.

This work is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule "A" of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.

Contact Name:

John Niedra, Manager

Infrastructure Asset Management and Programming

Transportation Services Division

Telephone: 392-5348

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Dufferin Street - CNE Grounds

Board of Management of Scadding Court

(Downtown)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Julie Gibson, Neil Powers, Stephen Foote, Theo Heras, Caroline Wuschke and Gloria Zang be appointed to the Board of Management of the Scadding Court Community Centre and that Judith Brady, Michelle Fudge, Lee Zaslofsky, Chris Bolton, Lisa Johnston, Alcia Aberdeen be reappointed to the Board of Management of the Scadding Court Community Centre, on an interim basis, at the pleasure of Council, and until their successors are appointed.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (June 28, 1999) from Mr. Kevin Lee, Executive Director, Scadding Court Community Centre, addressed to the City Clerk:

Further to the Annual General Meeting of Scadding Court Community Centre, held on June 24, 1999 at 6 p.m. The membership elected 6 community members who are residents of the City of Toronto, to serve on the Board of Management of Scadding Court Community Centre. The term of office for the elected members is for a two-year term.

Please process the following names to City Council for appointment to the Scadding Court Community Centre's Board of Management.

Julie Gibson Caroline Wuschke

Theo Heras Stephen Foote

Neil Powers Gloria Zhang

The following are members who were elected last year and will be serving out their remaining term of office this year.

Judith Brady Lisa Johnston

Chris Bolton Lee Zaslofsky

Michelle Fudge Alcia Aberdeen

Thank you, for your assistance in this matter.

159 and 161 Beatrice Street (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the City Solicitor and the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be authorized to attend the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing in support of the Committee of Adjustment Decision regarding 159 - 161 Beatrice Street.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following joint communication (July 5, 1999) from Councillors Pantalone and Silva:

Recommendation:

(1) That the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to take all necessary steps in concert with other City officials at the Ontario Municipal Board to support the Committee of Adjustment's decision regarding 159-161 Beatrice Street.

On June 1, 1999, the Committee of Adjustment considered an application from Joseph Messina in Trust regarding the above address. Based on over-whelming community opposition, opposition from City Planning (see attached memo), and concerns from the Works and Services Department, the Committee of Adjustment unanimously rejected this application (see attached decision).

We have just been advised that the property owner is appealing. It is imperative, in order to protect both the intent of our city's Main Streets policy and the quality of life in this residential community, that the City be represented at the Ontario Municipal Board in support of the Committee of Adjustment's decision.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter.

--------

(A copy of the following, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on July 15, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk):

- Notice of Decision dated June 4, 1999 from the Manager, Committee of Adjustment respecting 159 and 161 Beatrice Street

- Memorandum dated May 25, 1999 from the Manager, Community Planning, West Section, addressed to the Manager, Committee of Adjustment

Front Yard Parking - 130 Glen Manor Drive

(East Toronto)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the application for front yard parking for two vehicles at 130 Glen Manor Drive, subject to the applicant complying with Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 12, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on a request for an exemption from Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit front yard parking for two vehicles, which does not meet the requirements of the Municipal Code. As this is an appeal and a request for an exemption from the by-law, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit front yard parking for two vehicles, at 130 Glen Manor Drive, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 400 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(2) City Council approve front yard parking for one vehicle, subject to:

(a) the applicant removing all existing concrete paving of the private driveway and restoring the area to soft landscaping, i.e. a planting area or sod;

(b) the maximum area to be paved for parking not exceeding 2.6 metres wide by 5.9 metres long; and

(c) the parking area being paved with semi-permeable paving materials, i.e. ecostone pavers or approved and equivalent permeable paving treatment acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Background:

Councillor Tom Jakobek, in his communication dated June 22, 1999, together with a communication dated June 16, 1999 from Mr. Randy Wallace of Second Story Design Build Ltd., requested an exemption from the Municipal Code, on behalf of Mr. Mitchell Fenton, owner of 139 Glen Manor Drive, Toronto, Ontario M4E 2X6, to permit front yard parking for two vehicles at this location.

Comments:

The property has a private driveway which leads to an integral garage and partial car port at the side of the dwelling. The car port is situated approximately 18 metres from the back of the sidewalk, and the driveway can presently accommodate parking for 2 vehicles.

The owner has applied to and received approval from the Committee of Adjustments for a variance to convert the existing attached garage to habitable space.

The conversion of basement and integral garages is governed by Chapter 400 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. The current criteria of the Code permits the owner of the property to make an application for a front yard parking licence to allow parking for one vehicle on the existing driveway, provided the proposed parking area is made to comply with all other requirements of the front yard parking regulations, namely:

(a) the number of licenced parking spaces is limited to one;

(b) the size of the parking area does not exceed 2.6 metres wide by 5.9 metres long; and

(c) the proposed parking area is paved with semi-permeable material in accordance with the alternative paving treatment specifications set out in § 400-88, Schedule XXXV, Part II.

Mr. Randy Wallace attended the office and enquired about the procedures for licensing the parking space. He was advised that the property would qualify for front yard parking for one vehicle subject to the approval from the Committee of Adjustments for the conversion of the garage, and subject to the following conditions:

(a) the applicant will be required to remove all of the existing concrete paving of the private driveway and restore the area to soft landscaping, i.e. a planting area or sod;

(b) the maximum area to be paved for parking is 2.6 metres wide by 5.9 metres long as measured from the back of the sidewalk; and

(c) the parking area is to be paved using semi-permeable paving materials, i.e. ecostone pavers or approved and equivalent permeable paving treatment acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

I note that there has been no application submitted to this department for the licensing of the parking space.

Mr. Fenton wants to maintain the existing driveway and parking configuration and is therefore requesting parking for two vehicles within the limits of the existing driveway.

This existing driveway and parking configuration does not comply with the requirements of the Municipal Code, as follows:

(a) the driveway is paved in concrete which is not a permeable paving treatment;

(b) there are two parking spaces rather than the one space permitted at the front; and

Notwithstanding that the criteria of the Code does not permit the licensing of two parking spaces, and the existing conditions of the driveway do not meet the physical requirements of the Code, the minimum landscaped open space and soft landscaping requirements meet the criteria of the Code.

Conclusions:

As the Code limits the licensing to one (1) parking space, and the existing paving is not in accordance to City specifications, this request should be denied by Council.

Contact Name:

Nino Pellegrini

Telephone: 392-7778

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (July 8, 1999) from Councillor Jakobek:

I am writing to ask your indulgence to add a deputation to next week's Toronto Community Council. The matter deals with a front yard parking variance and should not take more than 5 minutes. There will only be one deputant.

I apologize for the short notice, however, I would appreciate it if this matter could be dealt with prior to Council's summer break.

Thank you for your consideration.

Boulevard Cafe - Extension of Hours -

2199 Bloor Street West (Future Bakery) (High Park)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) City Council approve an extension of the boulevard cafe hours on the Kennedy Avenue flankage of 2199 Bloor Street West to 2:00 a.m., 7 days a week, as requested by the applicant, on a temporary basis until September 14, 1999; and

(2) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report back to the Toronto Community Council, at its meeting to be held on September 14, 1999 on the operation of the cafe under the extended hours.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (July 12, 1999) from the City Clerk:

City Council, at its meeting held on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted, without amendment, the following Motion:

Moved by: Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski

Seconded by: Councillor Miller

"WHEREAS Future Bakery Cafe, located at 2199 Bloor Street West, Toronto, made an application on April 21, 1999, requesting boulevard cafe privileges on the Bloor Street West flankage; and

WHEREAS the application was reviewed with respect to compliance with the physical criteria of Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS the application had been determined to in fact meet the physical criteria of the Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS the approved extension flanks Bloor Street West, and was, in error, subject to the original boulevard cafe closing time of 11:00 p.m. set for Kennedy Avenue; and

WHEREAS given the owner's wishes to legally operate his Cafe beyond 11:00 p.m. on both the Bloor Street West and Kennedy Avenue flankages, and comply with the Code which allows him to make this request in writing to City Council for approval; and

WHEREAS upon City Council's approval, the legal agreements entered into between the City of Toronto and Future Bakery Cafe, and the clause specifically outlining the operation shall be amended respectively; and

WHEREAS urgent consideration of this matter by City Council is necessary in order to permit the applicant to take advantage of the summer season;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Future Bakery and Cafe be allowed to expand it's operational hours on the Bloor Street West flankage to conform with the same unrestricted time allowances as other cafes in the commercial zone on Bloor Street West;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the request of the Future Bakery and Cafe for additional hours on the Kennedy Avenue flankage be referred to the next meeting of the Toronto Community Council, with the applicant being required to post large signs notifying the community of its application for extended operating hours on the boulevard cafe on Kennedy Avenue."

Ontario Municipal Board -

Committee of Adjustment Decision - 120 Heath

Street West and Portions of 120 Heath Street West

and Nos. 56 and 58 Oriole Road (Midtown)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, amended this Clause by striking out the recommendation of the Toronto Community Council and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"It is recommended that the City Solicitor and appropriate City staff be authorized to attend the Ontario Municipal Board commencing on August 5, 1999, to uphold the Committee of Adjustment decisions under applications numbered D199900291, D199900292, D199900293 and D199900315, refusing variances and consents with respect to the subject properties.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the City Solicitor and the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be authorized to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing on August 5, 1999, to uphold the Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor zoning variance application at 120 Heath Street West, portions of 120 Heath Street West and 56 and 58 Oriole Road.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (June 12, 1999) from Councillor Adams:

Purpose:

To Authorize the City Solicitor and the Chief City Planner to represent the City in upholding the Zoning By-law at the Ontario Municipal Board in opposition to the applicant's appeal of the Committee of Adjustment Decision refusing a minor variance application at the above noted address.

Financial Implication:

Not applicable

Recommendation:

That the City Solicitor and the Chief City Planner be authorized to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing on August 5, 1999, to uphold the Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor zoning variance application at these addresses.

Background:

The applicant proposes to: sever the rear portion of the lots to create a new lot; create a right-of-way over a portion of the property in favour of 120 Heath Street West; construct a two-storey house located at the rear of 58 Oriole Road; and maintain three dwelling units on the lot of 120 Heath Street West, including a dwelling unit in the basement, on a reduced lot. This application is opposed by the Urban Planning and Development Department, and the Deer Park Ratepayers Group Inc. In its decisions, the Committee of Adjustment note that the applications represent overdevelopment, as they do not meet the four tests of the Planning Act.

--------

(A copy of the Notice of Decision dated April 22, 1999 from the Manager, Committee of Adjustment respecting 120 Heath Street West, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on July 15, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk):

Adjustment of the One Hour Parking Regulation -

Margueretta Street between College Street and

Bloor Street West (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the recommendations contained in the following communication (July 13, 1999) from Councillors Pantalone and Silva:

Purpose:

To remove the one-hour parking restriction between 7:00 am and midnight daily on Margueretta Street from the section at a point 157 metres south of Bloor Street to a point 150 metres north of College Street. This would allow three hour parking section for residential visitors mid-block which is a considerable distance from commercial streets.

Recommendations:

(1) That the existing one hour parking restriction between 7:00 am and midnight on the west side of Margueretta Street, from College Street to Bloor Street West be changed to operate from Bloor Street West to a point 157 metres south and from College Street to a point 150 metres north; and

Background:

At our request and on behalf of area residents, Transportation Services Staff investigated and reported on the possibility of removing the one-hour parking restriction on Margueretta Street from the section at a point 157 metres south of Bloor Street to a point 150 metres north of College Street (see attached report).

There are no intersecting streets on this section of Margueretta Street resulting in a block length of about 830 metres. In order to better serve the needs of residents and their guests, the 1 hour parking regulation could be segmented to apply only to the sections from Bloor Street West to a point 157 metres south and from College Street to a point 150 metres north. The middle section of Margueretta Street could revert to the unsigned 3 hour parking maximum restriction.

We have consulted with area residents and have been advised to proceed with the change on this portion of Margueretta Street.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

--------

(A copy of the communication dated January 19, 1999 from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services, addressed to Councillor Pantalone, referred to in the forgoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on July 15, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Suggested Two-Way Traffic Operation -

Markham Street between Robinson Street

and the first lane north (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the recommendations contained in the following communication (July 13, 1999) from Councillors Pantalone and Silva:

Purpose:

To permit residents of Palmerston Avenue and Markham Street using the laneway to access their garages via Markham Street, as opposed to having to travel all the way to Dundas Street West.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to rescind the existing one way traffic operation and permit two way traffic operation on Markham Street from Robinson Street to the lane 38 metres north (No.54 Markham Street) to provide access to the lane system from the south with the conditions enumerated below:

(a) Parking is prohibited at anytime on west side of Markham Street from Robinson Street to a point 50 meters north;

(b) Parking is prohibited at anytime on the east side of Markham Street from Robinson Street to a point 40 metres north;

(c) An island or planter is installed on Markham Street fronting Premises No. 45 to prevent traffic from proceeding the wrong-way on the street; and

(d) Suitable advisory signs are installed on Markham Street at Robinson Street to alert motorists that northbound traffic ends at a midblock point.

Background:

At our request and on behalf of area residents, Transportation Services Staff investigated and reported on the possibility of rescinding the existing one way traffic operation and allowing two - way traffic operation on Markham Street between Robinson Street and the first lane to the north of Robinson Street (see attached report).

We have consulted with area residents and have been advised by them to proceed with this change on this portion of Markham Street.

It is noted that approval of Recommendation 1 (c), the installation of an island/planter to prevent traffic from proceeding the wrong way on the street, would constitute a highway alteration under the provisions of the Municipal Act. This would require public advertising of the proposed island / planter and the hearing of deputations by Community Council. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services is also requested to prepare the appropriate drawings.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

--------

(A copy of the communication dated December 10, 1998 from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services, addressed to Councillor Pantalone, referred to in the forgoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on July 15, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Variance from Chapter 297, Signs,

of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -

297 King Street West (Downtown)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted the following recommendation:

"It is further recommended that the report dated July 21, 1999, from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that:

(1) City Council approve Application No. 999056, respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit one illuminated projecting sign at 297 King Street West; and

(2) the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 999056, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.'")

The Toronto Community Council submits this matter to Council without recommendation.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested:

(1) the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report directly to Council on an application for minor variances to the Sign by-law for 297 King Street West, on the understanding that the application to be submitted conforms to the drawings referred to the in Preliminary Review Notice (May 3, 1999) from the Buildings Division; and

(2) the City Solicitor to report as soon as possible to the Planning and Transportation Committee on how routine Sign By-law variance applications can be delegated to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, including appropriate "bump-up" procedures.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following motion (undated) from Councillor Chow:

"That Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to report directly to City Council on application for minor variances to the Sign By-law for 297 King Street West, on the understanding that the application to be submitted conforms to the drawings referred to in the May 3, 1999 Preliminary Review Notice from the Buildings Division; and

That the City Solicitor be requested to report as soon as possible on how routine Sign By-law variance applications can be delegated to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, including appropriate "bump up" procedures".

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 21, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit one illuminated projecting sign for identification purposes at 297 King Street West.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

1. That City Council approve Application No. 999056 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated projecting sign at 297 King Street West.

2. That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 999056, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the south side of King Street West, between John Street and Blue Jays Way, in the King-Spadina Reinvestment Area. The property accommodates a three storey building with the "Kit Kat-Bar & Grill" at grade.

The applicant is requesting permission to erect one illuminated projecting sign for identification purposes for the restaurant. The sign will have a length of 1.83 metres and a height of 1.37 metres, with an area of 2.50 m² (see Figure 1).

The proposed sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1. the proposed projecting sign will be located above the second storey of the building;

2. the area of the proposed sign (2.50 m²) exceeds by 2.10 m² the maximum 0.40 m² sign area permitted;

3. the sign will project 1.98 metres over the public sidewalk instead of the permitted 1.0 metre; and

4. the sign will interfere with windows of the building.

The first variance occurs because the sign will be erected above the level of the second storey of the building. Signs are permitted to be located only within the first two storeys of a building. The intent of this provision is to restrict signs to their traditional locations in order to minimize the impact of signage on the building to which they are attached, on the streetscape and on the adjacent residential uses. In this case, no reasonable opportunities for signage exist below this level on the frontage of the building. Further, the surrounding uses are commercial in nature and, in my opinion the proposed sign will not adversely impact the building, surrounding uses or the streetscape.

The second variance occurs because the area of the proposed sign (2.50 m²) exceeds by 2.10 m² the maximum 0.40 m² sign area permitted. The size of signs above grade is regulated in order to reduce the visual impact of signs on the streetscape and on the buildings to which they are attached. The maximum area for a projecting sign is based on the amount of frontage the commercial unit has on the street. In this instance, however, the sign exceeds the permitted size because the frontage of the unit is comparatively narrow (3.99 metres). The size of the proposed sign is, in my opinion, appropriate.

The third variance results from the extent of the sign's projection from the building face. The proposed sign would project 1.98 metres over the public sidewalk which exceeds by 0.98 metre the maximum 1.0 metre projection permitted by the Municipal Code. In this case, however, the proposed sign, although extending over the pedestrian walkway, will be located above the second storey of the building. The extent of projection will not endanger or inconvenience pedestrians.

Respecting the fourth variance, the sign does interfere with windows of the building, however, the interference does not affect any residential views nor light access, as the applicant has advised that the third storey is vacant.

I am, therefore, recommending approval of this application, as I find the variances requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209

Fax: (416) 392-0580

E-Mail: ngirdhar@toronto.ca)

Insert Table/Map No. 1

297 King Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Site Plan Details

Insert Table/Map No. 3

North Elevation

Insert Table/Map No. 4

Structure Elevation

Insert Table/Map No. 5

Proposed Sign Location

Insert Table/Map No. 6

Sign Details

Rescindment of the Alternate Side Parking

Regulations - Langley Avenue, between

Logan Avenue and Carlaw Avenue (Don River)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 15, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To rescind the alternate side parking system on Langley Avenue, between Logan Avenue and Carlaw Avenue, allow parking only on the north side of the street and increasing the number of parking spaces for residents.

Funding Sources:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the amount of $500.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That the parking prohibition from the 16^th day to the last day of each month, April 1 to November 30 on the north side of Langley Avenue, between Logan Avenue and Carlaw Avenue, be rescinded;

(2) That the parking prohibition from the 1^st day to the 16^th day of each month, April 1 to November 30 and at anytime from December 1 to March 31 on the south side of Langley Avenue, between Logan Avenue and Carlaw Avenue, be rescinded;

(3) That parking be prohibited at anytime on the south side of Langley Avenue, between Logan Avenue and Carlaw Avenue;

(4) That the permit parking regulation from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily on Langley Avenue between Logan Avenue and Carlaw Avenue, be adjusted to apply only on the north side of the street; and

(5) That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect thereto, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Jack Layton, arising from a concern expressed by local residents that the alternate side parking system on Langley Avenue, between Logan Avenue and Carlaw Avenue results in a higher frequency of parking tags being issued to residents on changeover days, Transportation Services has investigated rescinding the alternate side parking regulations and permitting parking year round only on the north side of this section of Langley Avenue.

Langley Avenue, between Logan Avenue and Carlaw Avenue, operates one way westbound on a pavement width of 7.32 metres and a maximum speed limit of 40 km/h. The existing parking regulations on this section of Langley Avenue are presented in following table:

Location Regulation

North side of Langley Avenue, between Logan Avenue and Carlaw Avenue No Parking from the 16^th to the last day of each month, April 1 to November 30

South side of Langley Avenue, between Logan Avenue and Carlaw Avenue No Parking from the 1^st to the 15^th day of each month, April 1 to November 30

No Parking Anytime from December 1 of one year to March 31 of the next following year

At present, there are 27 parking spaces on the north side and 24 parking spaces on the south side of Langley Avenue, between Logan Avenue and Carlaw Avenue. Use of these spaces is subject to the provisions of the alternate side parking regulations outlined in the table above.

From an operational safety perspective, there are no significant concerns associated with rescinding the alternate side parking regulations and allowing parking only on the north side of Langley Avenue, between Logan Avenue and Carlaw Avenue. This change will result in an over all increase of 3 parking spaces on a year round basis on Langley Avenue and in permit parking Area 8B. However, one of the prime benefits of alternating parking is to facilitate regular scheduling of mechanical street sweeping operations. With the presence of parking year round on the north side of the street, street sweepers will be unable to reach the curb unless there is gap in parked vehicles. It is likely that residents on the north side of Langley Avenue, between Logan Avenue and Carlaw Avenue would notice an increase in the accumulation of dirt and debris as staff resources do not enable us to schedule consistent manual cleaning of the street.

Residents of Langley Avenue, between Logan Avenue and Carlaw Avenue, have submitted a petition indicating that a majority on both sides of the street support this proposal and Councillors Jack Layton and Pam McConnell have advised staff that they endorse the proposed changes.

Contact Name:

Vince Suppa, Coordinator - Traffic Investigations

District 1 - East Area

Telephone: (416)397-5436

Request for Endorsement of Events for

Liquor Licensing Purposes

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council, for liquor licensing purposes:

(1) declare the following to be events of municipal and/or community significance and advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it has no objection to their taking place:

(a) Fourth Annual Moss Park Community Festival on August 6, 1999 in the Moss Park Community area, bounded by Sherbourne on the west, Queen Street on the South, Parliament on the East and Shuter on the North;

(b) Beaches 6th Annual Blues Fest '99 to be held on July 31, 1999 and August 1, 1999 at Ashbridges Bay Park from 12:00 noon to 9:00 p.m.);

(2) declare the Canadian National Exhibition to be held from August 20, 1999 to September 6, 1999 at Exhibition Place to be an event of municipal, provincial and national significance, and advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it has no objection to it taking place;

(3) declare the Cabbagetown Festival to be held from September 8 - 12, 1999 to be an event of municipal and/or community significance and advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission that it has no objection to its taking place, nor to extension of the liquor licences of the various establishments as set out in the communication (June 30, 1999) from the Mr. Shawne Fagan, addressed to the City Clerk;

(4) advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it is aware of the following events and has no objection to their taking place:

(a) the Jersey Giant Restaurant and Pub Street Event for Charity, to be held on pavement and sidewalk of the south arm of Front Street from Church- Street to Market Street between 12:00 noon and 11:00 p.m., on July 11, 1999;

(b) Fundraising event to be held at Holy Name Church on August 7, 1999 from 11:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. and August 8, 1999 from 12 noon to 11:30 p.m;

(c) Dundee Mutual Funds respecting Company Celebration to be held on August 5, 1999;

(d) Barbecue at HMCS Haida, Ontario Place on August 3, 1999 from 5:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.;

(e) Wedding at Knox College, 59 St. George Street, Toronto on August 14, 1999 from 1:00 p.m. - 12:00 a.m.;

(f) Annual Steelband Festival at Monarch Park on July 23, 1999.

(5) advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it is aware of the Summerworks Theatre Festival from August 5 - 15, 1999 and has no objection it taking place; nor to an extension of the liquor licence permit # 804127 to cover an outdoor beverage are located in front of the Tarragon Theatre at 30 Bridgman Avenue for the duration of the event; and

(6) endorse the action of the Toronto Community Council, since the event takes place prior to Council's meeting, in advising the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it is aware of the Toronto Saracens Rugby Football Club B.B.Q./fundraiser held from 1:00 p.m. - 1:00 a.m. on July 17, 1999 at the Toronto Firefighters Union Hall - 39 Commissioner Street, Toronto, and that it had no objection to it taking place.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having had before it, during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (June 25, 1999) from Mr. Phillip Noble, Consultant, Street Events Management, respecting The Jersey Giant Restaurant and Pub Street Event for Charity, between 12:00 noon and 11:00 p.m., September 12, 1999, pavement and sidewalk of the south arm of Front Street from Church Street to Market Street (Downtown)

- (June 29, 1999) from Mr. Don Mc Eachern, Chairperson, Moss Park Festival Committee and Ms. Lisa Henderson, Property Manager, Moss Park respecting the Forth Annual Moss Park Community Festival on August 6, 1999 in the Moss Park Community area, bounded by Sherbourne on the west, Queen Street on the South, Parliament on the East and Shuter on the North.

- (June 28, 1999) from Mr. Oliver McEnroe, Holy Name Church respecting Fundraising event to be held on August 7, 1999 from 11:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. and August 8, 1999 from 12 noon to 11:30 p.m.

- (June 29, 1999) from Ms. Shawne Fagan, Public Relations respecting Cabbagetown Festival - September 8 - 12, 1999

- (June 30, 1999) from Mr. Robb McGuigan, Food and Beverage Consultant and Consulting Auditor, The Canadian National Exhibition respecting the Canadian National Exhibition - August 20, 1999 to September 6, 1999

- (June 30, 1999) from Mr. Ed Bezeau, Dundee Mutual Funds respecting Company Celebration - End of Season - August 5, 1999 (start 6:00 p.m.)

- (July 7, 1999) from Mr. Alex Ponton, Social Director, Toronto Saracens Rugby Football Club respecting B.B.Q./ fundraiser - July 17, 1999 at the Toronto Firefighters Union Hall - 39 Commissioner Street, Toronto (1:00 p.m. - 1:00 a.m.)

- (July 7, 1999) from Mr. Leroy St. Germaine, Beaches 6th Annual Blues Fest 99 respecting Beaches 6th Annual Blues Fest 99 - July 31, 1999 and August 1, 1999 at Ashbridges Bay Park (12:00 noon - 9:00 p.m.)

- (July 9, 1999) from Mr. Craig Morash, Tarragon Theatre respecting Temporary extension of Liquor Licence at 30 Bridgeman Avenue, Tarragon Theatre for the duration of the SummerWorks Theatre Festival - August 5 - 15, 1999

- (July 7, 1999) from Mr. Paul Oakley, Daniel et Daniel Catering Inc. respecting Barbecue at HMCS Haida, Ontario Place on August 3, 1999 (5:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.)

- (July 7, 1999) from Mr. Alex Ponton, Social Director, Toronto Saracens Rugby Football Club respecting the hosting of a non-profit B.B.Q./fundraiser at the Toronto Firefighters Unionhall - 39 Commissioner St. (1:00 p.m. - 1:00 a.m.)

- (July 14, 1999) from Aage (Owen) Iversen respecting a wedding being held at Knox College, 59 St. George Street, Toronto (August 14, 1999) (1:00 p.m. - 12:00 a.m.)

- (July 6, 1999) from Cecil Clarke, Chair, Pan Trinbago Steelband Association Canada respecting Annual Steelband Festival at Monarch Park (Coxwell and Hanson) - July 23, 1999

Unlocking Toronto's Port Lands:

Directions for the Future - Forwarding Report (Don River)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1) Mayor Lastman be requested to meet with the Federal and Provincial Governments to discuss the development of economic partnerships to support a new vision of the Toronto Waterfront and report the results of such discussions to Council; and

(2) the report dated July 20, 1999, from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that:

(1) the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be authorized to retain, in consultation with TEDCO, a facilitator to co-ordinate the public and stakeholder consultation process that will provide input into future reporting on planning directions for the Port Lands Part II Official Plan and that the consultation process be extended from two to four months;

(2) Council allocate funds not exceeding $40,000.00 from the Corporate Contingency Account to retain the facilitator; and

(3) Recommendation No. (5) embodied in the report dated June 28, 1999, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be substituted with the following:

"(5) that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and TEDCO be requested to report jointly on:

- a review of the experience of other international waterfront cities in regenerating areas like the Port Lands; and

- appropriate land management models for the Port Lands at the time the final planning report and any implementation strategy are submitted;". ' ")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the following recommendations from the Planning and Transportation Committee, from its meeting of July 12, 1999, be adopted:

"(A) Recommendation No. (3) of the report (June 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be amended to read:

"(3) the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services carry out a public consultation process over the next two months to solicit comments on the "Unlocking Toronto's Port Lands" report including the Port Lands Community Forum, other community groups, BIAs, area landowners, industrialists and other businesses and that this consultation process include discussions on how to protect and enhance the industrial potential, and that it be a consultative process similar to that provided for the F.G. Gardiner East Dismantling Project;" and

(B) Recommendation No. (5) of the report (June 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be deleted;

(C) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be actively involved in the development process and that he be requested to report separately on all matters relating to the extension of the urban forest in all areas of the Port Lands;

(D) the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the TTC be requested to report jointly to the Planning and Transportation Committee on the options available in bringing public transit to this area;

(E) a waterfront setback policy be established for the Port Lands;

(F) a transportation plan for automobile, truck, transit and rail access be developed;

(G) the following recommendations contained in the joint report (July 12, 1999) from Councillors McConnell and Layton, be adopted:

(a) that further planning directions for the Port Lands effectively address the following issues:

(i) that Carlaw Avenue be emphasised as a potential gateway as well as encouraging access to the waterfront for children and families;

(ii) the provision of a connection from Carlaw Avenue/ Commissioners Street on the west edge of the turning basin to a bridge (perhaps floating) across the Ship Channel to the east end of the Cherry Beach area;

(iii) the need to provide much better access to the public to the open spaces at Clarke (Cherry) Beach for recreational purposes. Recreation needs of the whole city can be met here and this should be one of the priorities for the new planning;

(iv) the need for more detail on the greenspace and access in subsequent plans;

(v) the poor air quality issues in the area be addressed in the next report;

(vi) a stronger emphasis on LRT plans;

(vii) consideration of implementing a "green roof policy" for the Port Lands;

(viii) the inclusion in the plan of an environmental template/plan including storm water management and food production opportunities in the plan;

(ix) the connection of the wildlife corridor to the Leslie Street Spit including the consideration of ornithological studies and height of buildings appropriate for birds. Songbird pathways should be improved and strengthened in consultation with provincial birding organizations, and natural habitat and food sources should be enhanced throughout the Port Lands;

(x) the identification of rail options to achieve the goals outlined in the Plan such as the revitalization of the mouth of the Don River;

(xi) the development and application of green performance standards for all lands, developments and activities in the Port Lands;

(xii) consideration of a design competition for the entire Port Lands at appropriate points in the development; and

(b) the goal of increasing employment in the Port Lands, including the protection of existing industry, be supported and that the Port Lands Forum be permitted to establish a sub-group to meet in parallel with the citizens to facilitate the involvement of as many affected businesses as possible;

(c) a facilitator be used to assist with the public consultations; and

(d) the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in conjunction with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, the Task Force to Bring Back the Don and affected Ward Councillors be requested to undertake a full consideration of options, including flooding, groundwater and soil remediation, to re-route the Don River and that a special meeting of experts and interested citizens be convened and that studies previously prepared on this subject be made available."

(2) Recommendation No. (1) of the report (June 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be amended to read:

"(1) City Council adopt in principle the planning directions outlined in the report 'Unlocking Toronto's Port Lands: Directions for the Future, but that this adoption not be seen to prejudge the outcome of further consultations concerning the concept of residential uses in the Quays and the Inner Harbour District;"

(3) the report (June 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by Recommendations Nos. (1) and (2) be adopted;

(4) a Working Group on the greening and habitat preservation in the Port Lands be created, with special focus on the south central part of the Port Lands;

(5) the boundary between the Port Lands Business District and the Industrial Employment District be reviewed;

(6) a special evaluation be undertaken of the Keating Quay; and

(7) consideration of the sailing clubs be an additional focus of review.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having:

(1) requested the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report directly to Council on extending the consultation time set out in Recommendation No. 1(A)(3) from two months to four months;

(2) directed that all persons who have communicated with the City on this matter be involved in the consultation process;

(3) endorsed the following actions of the Planning and Transportation Committee, from its meeting of July 12, 1999, in having:

(a) requested the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report directly to Council for its meeting on July 27, 1999:

(i) on the source of any additional funds required to implement the Committee's Recommendation 1(a) respecting an expansion of the consultative process along similar lines as that implemented for the F.G. Gardiner East Dismantling Project; and

(ii) in consultation with TEDCO and Ward Councillors, on an amended Recommendation to replace Recommendation (5) of the report (June 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; and

(b) received a presentation given by Beate Bowron, Urban Planning and Development Services.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (July 14, 1999) from the City Clerk, Planning and Transportation Committee:

Recommendation:

That the Toronto Community Council, in accordance with Recommendation (6) of the report (June 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, forward the following recommendations made by the Planning and Transportation Committee at its meeting on July 12, 1999 to City Council for its meeting on July 27, 1999:

The Planning and Transportation Committee recommends that:

(1) the report (June 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted subject to:

(a) amending Recommendation (3) to read:

(b) deleting Recommendation (5);

(2) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be actively involved in the development process and that he be requested to report separately on all matters relating to the extension of the urban forest in all areas of the Port Lands;

(3) the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the TTC be requested to report jointly to the Planning and Transportation Committee on the options available in bringing public transit to this area;

(4) a waterfront setback policy be established for the Port Lands;

(5) a transportation plan for automobile, truck, transit and rail access be developed;

(6) the following recommendations contained in the joint report (July 12, 1999) from Councillors McConnell and Layton, be adopted:

(a) that further planning directions for the Port Lands effectively address the following issues:

(i) that Carlaw Avenue be emphasised as a potential gateway as well encouraging access to the waterfront for children and families;

(ii) the provision of a connection from Carlaw Avenue/Commissioners Street on the west edge of the turning basin to a bridge (perhaps floating) across the ship channel to the east end of the Cherry Beach area;

(iv) the need for more detail on the greenspace and access in subsequent plans;

(v) the poor air quality issues in the area be addressed in the next report;

(vi) a stronger emphasis on LRT plans;

(vii) consideration of implementing a "green roof policy" for the Port Lands;

(viii) the inclusion in the plan of an environmental template/plan including storm water management and food production opportunities in the plan;

(x) the identification of rail options to achieve the goals outlined in the Plan such as the revitalization of the mouth of the Don River;

(xi) the development and application of green performance standards for all lands, developments and activities in the Port Lands;

(xii) consideration of a design competition for the entire Port Lands at appropriate points in the development; and

The Committee reports, for the information of Toronto Community Council, having:

(1) requested the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report directly to Council for its meeting on July 27, 1999:

(a) on the source of any additional funds required to implement the Committee's Recommendation 1(a) respecting an expansion of the consultative process along similar lines as that implemented for the F.G. Gardiner East Dismantling Project; and

(b) in consultation with TEDCO and Ward Councillors, on an amended Recommendation to replace Recommendation (5) of the report (June 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; and

(2) received a presentation given by Beate Bowron, Urban Planning and Development Services.

Background

At its meeting on July 12, 1999, the Planning and Transportation Committee gave consideration to the report ((June 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services providing a planning direction for the Port Lands which outlines:

- an urban design and open space framework;

- options to improve access to the Port Lands for all modes of transport;

- opportunities to allow for a wider mix of land uses while protecting, and allowing for expansion of the existing industrial base; and

- an implementation strategy and various tools which can be used to help achieve the revitalization of the area.

and recommending that:

(1) City Council adopt in principle the planning directions outlined in the report "Unlocking Toronto's Port Lands: Directions for the Future";

(2) the boundaries of the Port Lands Part II Official Plan Area be amended to include all of Tommy Thompson Park and the Ashbridges Bay Sewage Treatment Plant;

(3) the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services carry out a public consultation process over the next two months to solicit comment on the "Unlocking Toronto's Port Lands" report including the Port Lands Community Forum, other community groups, BIAs, area landowners, industrialists and other businesses;

(4) City Council request the Ontario Municipal Board at its September 3, 1999 hearing on the East Bayfront Official Plan and Zoning By-law to amend the East Bayfront Zoning By-law 1997-0184 to repeal the permission for 4500 sq.m. of retail development per lot;

(5) City Council endorse the hiring of a consultant to undertake a study of Land Management Partnership models for the Port Lands. The estimated $100,000 required for this purpose could be cost-shared between the City and TEDCO;

(6) this report and the recommendations of the Planning and Transportation Committee be forwarded to the July 15, 1999 meeting of Toronto Community Council and that Toronto Community Council forward this report, its recommendations and the recommendations of Planning and Transportation Committee to City Council for its meeting of July 27, 1999; and

(7) all future reporting on the new Official Plan for the Port Lands be sent directly to the Planning and Transportation Committee, as this study is of City-wide interest.

The Committee also gave consideration to the following reports/communications:

- (July 9, 1999) from Tim W. Bermingham, Blake, Cassels & Graydon respecting the Home Depot Appeal to the OMB with respect to 429 Lakeshore and 324 Cherry

- (July 12, 1999) from Joan Doiron, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee requesting the Committee to included the Toronto Pedestrian Committee in the planning process for the Port Lands

- (June 21, 1999) from Paul Young, South Riverdale Community Health Centre forwarding a summary of ideas for the development of the Port Lands

- (July 12, 1999) from Councillor McConnell and Councillor Layton forwarding the following recommendations:

(1) It is recommended that the further development of the Plan for the Port Lands effectively address the issues below:

- emphasize Carlaw as a potential gateway as well as encourage access to the waterfront for families and children;

- connection could be provided from Carlaw/Commissioners on the west edge of the turning basin to a bridge (floating? etc.) across the ship channel to the east end of the Cherry Beach area;

- need to provide much better access to the public to the open spaces at Clarke (Cherry) beach for recreational purposes. Recreation needs of the whole city can be met here and this should be one of the priorities for the new planning;

- need more detail on the greenspace and access in subsequent plans;

- next Planning report to address the poor air quality issues in the area;

- stronger emphasis on the LRT plans;

- consider a "green roof policy" for the Port Lands;

- environmental template/plan including storm water management and food production opportunities should be included in the plan;

- the wildlife corridor should connect to the spit. Height of buildings should be appropriate for birds. Ornithological studies should be considered. Songbird pathways should be improved and strengthened in consultation with provincial birding organizations. Natural habitat and food sources should be enhanced throughout the Port Lands;

- identify the rail options to achieve the goals outlined in the plan such as the re-vitalization of the mouth of the Don River;

- green performance standards for all lands, developments and activities in the port should be developed and applied;

- a design competition for the entire Port Lands should be considered at appropriate points in the development of ideas;

(2) the Forum urges Council to support the suggestions in the "Unlocking" Report which oppose "big box" uses in the Port Lands. The Forum supports the removal of the 4500 sq.m. retail permission in the East Bayfront;.

(3) the Forum supports the goal of increasing employment in the Port Lands, including protecting existing industry;

(4) the Forum recommends that the Port Lands Forum be allowed to spawn a business sector sub group which can meet in parallel with the citizens to facilitate the involvement of as many affected businesses as possible;

(5) the Forum recommends that the City establish and fund a facilitator to assist with the public consultations; and.

(6) the Planning Department, in conjunction with the Task Force to Bring Back the Don, Ward Councillors and the Works Department undertake a full consideration of options for the Don River re-routing should be undertaken. A special meeting of experts and interested citizens should be convened to sort out the merits of the options. Full documentation of studies already done should be made available for this process. Flooding, groundwater and soil remediation issues should also be considered.

The following persons appeared before the Planning and Transportation Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- James W. Harbell, obo Setiao and Redpath Sugars,

- Ruth Richardson, Leves Ponds

- Stan Makuch, obo Lasarge Cement

- Ernest Rovet, Barrister & Solicitor

- Tony O'Donohue, Environmental Probe Ltd.

- Dale Martin

- Tim Bermingham, Blake Cassels & Graydon

- Gerald Swinkin, Blake Cassels & Graydon

- Dalton C. Shipway

- Marilyn Roy

- Councillor Jack Layton

- Councillor Bruce Sinclair

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (June 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To forward the "Summary Report - Unlocking Toronto's Port Lands: Directions for the Future" which will be before the Planning and Transportation Committee at its meeting of July 12, 1999.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Toronto Community Council:

(1) Consider the recommendations in the attached report "Summary Report - Unlocking Toronto's Port Lands: Directions for the Future" dated June 28, 1999 from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services" addressed to Planning and Transportation Committee.

(2) Forward its recommendations and those of the Planning and Transportation Committee to City Council for its meeting to be held on July 27, 1999.

Comments:

At its meeting of December 16 and 17, 1998, City Council directed the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to undertake a Part II Planning Study for the Port Lands.

The "Summary Report - Unlocking Toronto's Port Lands: Directions for the Future" is attached as Appendix 1. The direction to develop a new plan for the Port Lands came from Toronto Community Council in the context of a report on the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment application for a Home Depot store at Cherry Street and Lake Shore Boulevard East.

As the new plan for the Port Lands will have city-wide implications due to the size and significance of the area, this matter has been forwarded to Planning and Transportation Committee for comment, but without deputations. Deputations will be heard at the July 15, 1999 meeting of Toronto Community Council which will forward its recommendations and those of Planning and Transportation Committee to City Council for its meeting of July 27, 1999. Future reports will be submitted directly to the Planning and Transportation Committee.

Contact Name:

Michael Major

Telephone: (416) 392-0760

Fax: (416) 392-1330

E-Mail: name@toronto.ca

--------

Appendix A

June 28, 1999

To: Planning and Transportation Committee

From: Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services

Subject: Summary Report - Unlocking Toronto's Port Lands: Directions for the Future (Ward 25 - Don River)

Purpose:

To provide a planning direction for the Port Lands which outlines:

- an urban design and open space framework

- options to improve access to the Port Lands for all modes of transport

- opportunities to allow for a wider mix of land uses while protecting, and allowing for expansion of the existing industrial base

- an implementation strategy and various tools which can be used to help achieve the revitalization of the area

The Directions report, which will be submitted under separate cover, will be the subject of public consultation over the next two months leading to the presentation of the final recommendations for a new Official Plan for the Port Lands to City Council at the end of 1999.

Source of Funds:

It will be necessary to allocate funds in the amount of $100,000.00 for a study to be undertaken by the City in partnership with TEDCO to investigate Land Management Partnership models for the Port Lands. This study will assist the City in identifying the most appropriate model to guide and attract reinvestment to the Port Lands. Funding for the study could be cost-shared between TEDCO and the City.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Council adopt in principle the planning directions outlined in the report "Unlocking Toronto's Port Lands: Directions for the Future".

(2) The boundaries of the Port Lands Part II Official Plan Area be amended to include all of Tommy Thompson Park and the Ashbridges Bay Sewage Treatment Plant.

(3) The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services carry out a public consultation process over the next two months to solicit comment on the "Unlocking Toronto's Port Lands" report including the Port Lands Community Forum, other community groups, BIAs, area landowners, industrialists and other businesses.

(6) This report and the recommendations of the Planning and Transportation Committee be forwarded to the July 15, 1999 meeting of Toronto Community Council and that Toronto Community Council forward this report, its recommendations and the recommendations of Planning and Transportation Committee to City Council for its meeting of July 27, 1999.

(7) All future reporting on the new Official Plan for the Port Lands be sent directly to the Planning and Transportation Committee, as this study is of City-wide interest.

Background:

At its meeting of December 16 and 17, 1998, City Council directed the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to undertake a Part II Planning study for the Port Lands. This study was recommended to address:

- a number of diverse interests in the area including development applications for residential, retail warehouses, the proposed 2008 Olympic Athletes' Village, recreational and open space interests and the need for transportation improvements;

- the request by area businesses for a comprehensive plan for the area to help them make long term business and investment decisions;

- the need for a plan which would support a reinvestment strategy for the area; and

- the need to address the interests of the new Toronto Port Authority in maintaining its Port operations and protecting for shipping on the Central Waterfront.

Comments:

In March, 1999 City planning staff held a public open house and participated in a Community Forum hosted by area Councillors Layton, McConnell, Bussin and Jakobek to solicit community ideas on the future of the Port Lands. In addition, planning staff participated in three Reinvestment Workshops hosted by Economic Development staff and attended by local businesses. The preliminary conclusions from the Economic Development workshops are attached as Appendix 1 to this report. Planning staff have also consulted with staff from all City Service Areas, SETIAO, the Task Force to Bring Back the Don, Toronto Regional Conservation Authority, individual landowners, industrialists and other businesses to solicit comments. Staff have received numerous letters and communications from interested groups and individuals forwarding ideas for the future of the Port Lands.

1. The Port Lands Today

The Port Lands are unique within the City of Toronto. The majority of this 400 hectare (1,000 acre) site is in public ownership, primarily in City ownership through TEDCO with substantial parcels in Provincial and Federal ownership. The Port Lands include a large amount of parkland and open space: the North Shore Park, Tommy Thomson Park and the Baselands at the north end of Tommy Thompson. This is the only area in the amalgamated city where road, rail and shipping meet.

The area is characterized by land intensive uses and businesses which take advantage of the proximity to the downtown, and access to both the Don Valley Parkway and Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor. Existing businesses include aggregates, salt, recycling, cement batching, Toronto Hydro (the area's major employer) and film/studio uses. In spite of its prime location, only 3,000 jobs are located in the Port Lands and 45% of the land is vacant.

2. Directions

The Directions report sets out a comprehensive plan to take advantage of the significant opportunities for reinvestment and development in the area and ways to address some of the challenges.

The Directions report is focussed on three organizing principles: a Structure Plan including a system of green corridors, natural areas and parks and other aspects of the built environment; placemaking; and transportation directions.

Structure Plan: The structure plan sets out a framework for development identifying a streets and blocks pattern, major view corridors and view termini and major features of the Port Lands, natural or man-made, to be protected and enhanced. The structure plan identifies green corridors, natural areas and parks and buildings on the "Greening the Port Lands" report prepared by the Waterfront Regeneration Trust. The proposed open space plan for the Port Lands envisions:

- a continuous waterfront promenade, interrupted only where heavy industry and shipping use of the dockwall make the promenade impractical or unsafe

- a ring of parks along the waterfront similar to the waterfront park system being built in Harbourfront

- natural areas such as the mouth of the Don River, Tommy Thompson Park, the Baselands (at the north end of Tommy Thompson) and the east end of the North Shore Park, providing habitat zones and areas for the City to achieve some of its environmental objectives

- more parks, such as McCleary Park on Lake Shore Boulevard East, which provide for active recreation and play space

- recreational pathways, like the Martin Goodman Trail, which provide continuous off-road bike and pedestrian trails from Cherry Street and Lake Shore Boulevard, south to the North Shore Park and south of the Ashbridges Bay Sewage Treatment plant to the Eastern Beaches.

The second major portion of the report addresses the issue of Places in the Port Lands. Encompassing 400 hectares of land, the Port Lands presents the opportunity to accommodate a diverse mix of uses to provide activity in the area seven days a week, 24 hours a day. This large land area and the separation of areas by major waterways allow ample opportunity to provide buffers between diverse uses. Following is a brief description of the six major Places proposed for the Port Lands.

The Quays and Inner Harbour District - Polson and Cousins Quay are extraordinary waterfront development sites - this place is identified for a wide mix of uses (with the eventual relocation of some heavy industrial uses) to create a diverse urban community where people work, play and live.

Cherry Street Corridor - this corridor is an important gateway to the Port Lands and will become one of the area's main streets with a range of commercial uses.

Port Lands Business District - between Cherry and Saulter Streets, this area will attract business and lighter industrial uses.

Industrial Employment District - from Saulter Street to Leslie Street, an area for a broad range of employment uses, in addition to what has been traditionally considered industrial, opportunities for expansion of the film/studio uses already in this area.

Leslie Street Corridor - like Cherry Street, Leslie Street is an important gateway to the Port Lands. This green street will be characterized by wide landscaped setbacks and recreational trails.

Port and Shipping District - the working heart of the Port Lands, the lands around the Turning Basin and the unserviced lands south of the Ship Channel are reserved for heavy industrial, land intensive uses, many of which rely on shipping.

The vision identified for the Places in the Port Lands will allow the City to focus investment in each of these areas which can best benefit the predominant use in each area or revitalize largely vacant areas. For example, south of the Ship Channel investment can be concentrated on the convergence of rail, ship and truck access to this area. Along the Cherry Street Corridor, the City can pursue streetscape improvements and work with local retailers and service providers to accommodate stores and restaurants to provide amenities to the people who work in the area.

The report also outlines transportation directions which describe opportunities and options to improve access to the Port such as:

- improvements at Cherry Street and Lake Shore Boulevard East to allow for the extension of Queen's Quay West, creation of a gateway and accommodation of the naturalized mouth of the Don River

- transportation improvements and creation of gateways at the Don Roadway, Carlaw Avenue and Leslie Street

- the southward extension of the Don Roadway and potentially a bridge across the Ship Channel on the Don Roadway alignment

- the realignment of Unwin Avenue and connection as a public road which can accommodate truck traffic to Leslie Street

- improvements to the local street grid within the Port Lands in keeping with the framework provided by the Structure Plan and Open Space Plan

3. Fitting In

Although the proposals set out above accommodate a very diverse mix of uses, my position on large retail warehouses in the Port Lands remains unchanged from my November, 1998 report on the proposed Home Depot at Cherry Street and Lake Shore Boulevard East. The Port Lands are not planned to become a destination shopping area and retail warehouses are not an appropriate waterfront use. These uses have been and continue to be accommodated in other areas of the city where they fit within the planned structure.

The Port Lands have the potential of growing into an exciting, diverse urban community- with a strong and expanding employment base - quite unique in the new City of Toronto. Large and smaller scale retail warehouses do not fit with this long term vision. Market studies to date, show that, on their own, individual "big boxes" do not damage the economic health of existing retail strips. However, agglomerations of two, three or more, may have a negative impact.

This is an issue not only in the Port Lands, but in the East Bayfront as a whole. In the East Bayfront, the by-laws currently before the Ontario Municipal Board permit 4,500 square metres per lot, based on the recommendations of the East Bayfront Working Committee. This permission was intended to encourage new commercial investment appropriate for the area. However, outside of the Home Depot application which proposed to double the permitted floor area, no development proposals have come forward.

The Home Depot application, which was refused by City Council, highlights the unintended consequences of this permission. To rectify the situation, I am recommending that the 4,500 square metre permission be rescinded and that the Ontario Municipal Board be so advised.

While the market impacts may be subject to debate, large or small scale retail warehouses are car oriented and require large amounts of surface parking. From a planning point-of-view, they are inappropriate in a waterfront location.

4. Implementation

As has happened in many waterfront cities - London, New York, Boston - the implementation of a bold vision to revitalize an area as large and as important as the Port Lands requires a focussed implementation plan and a strong commitment both to the idea of the plan and to its financing. A number of tools are available, or could be pursued to move a plan like this forward, such as:

- Planning Legislation which allows for designation of Community Improvement Areas and Section 37 Agreements to help fund infrastructure improvements

- Tax Incentives such as Tax Increment Financing and accelerated tax decreases for commercial users

- senior government funding programs such as the current Federal Millennium funding

These tools, however, have not traditionally been successful on the scale of an area like the Port Lands in the absence of a single-minded, dedicated agency with the full support and buy-in from both the public and private sectors. In order to achieve this, I am recommending that the City, in partnership with TEDCO, hire a consultant to investigate various models for a Land Management Partnership which could include all stakeholders in the area and pool resources to implement an overall plan and reinvestment strategy for the Port Lands.

After years of debate and many competing interests, it is essential to focus on a vision that can unlock the true potential of the Port Lands and achieve numerous City objectives. It is essential to take the time to get it right.

5. Public Process

The "Unlocking Toronto's Port Lands: Directions for the Future" report is meant to be a discussion paper to focus comments and build consensus on the future vision for the Port Lands. Staff of Urban Planning and Development Services will lead a public consultation process on this paper over the next two months. This process will include input from the area Councillors and from as many groups as possible including community groups, BIAs, area landowners, SETIAO, industrialists and other businesses. Planning staff will also continue to consult with all City Services Areas and public agencies with an interest in the area.

6. Next Steps

I will report to Planning and Transportation Committee in the fall of 1999 on the outcome of the public consultation process and any changes or refinements to the Directions report as a result of that process and ongoing planning studies for the area.

Conclusion:

Based on current research and preliminary public consultation, the attached report, "Unlocking the Toronto Port Lands: Directions for the Future", provides a broad vision for the Port Lands which recognizes the need for a diversity of uses and the need for a bold vision to unlock this very important part of the Central Waterfront. With ongoing consultation and identification of an appropriate land management strategy, I am confident that the revitalization of the Port Lands is an achievable goal.

Contact:

Michael Major

Telephone: (416) 392-0760

Fax: (416) 392-1330

E-mail: mmajor@toronto.ca

--------

Appendix 1

Port District Investment Strategy Forum

Summary of Key Issues and Recommendations

From the Meetings of June 7^th and 17^th, 1999

The following issues and recommendations are divided into four categories: Land Use, Zoning, Image and Operational, and Competitiveness. Participants at the forum sessions did not reach a consensus on the main land issue related to the introduction of residential uses. The majority of participants opposed the introduction of residential uses into the area. With respect to the other categories, there was a general consensus in support of the issues and recommendations identified.

Land Use Issues and Recommendations

- Create a stable climate for investment by making a firm Council decision with respect to the land use policies for the area that will then give businesses some certainty about what is realistically going to happen in the District over the next ten years.

- Maintain the integrity of the District for industrial and business uses by not permitting the introduction of residential uses within the District.

- Ensure that land use policies support the retention and growth of core activities in the District which includes Manufacturing, Distribution Businesses, Recycling, Power Generation and Distribution, Public Works, Cement and Aggregate Distribution and Port Shipping activities.

- Establish policies that encourage the retention and further growth of Film/ Media/ Recording activities and private recreation businesses and that address issues related to compatibility between businesses.

- Establish policies that would allow the establishment and growth of new business activities in the waterfront tourism sector, larger scale retail sector and business services sector. Support the creation of a business campus in the Port District.

- Promote other areas of the City, such as the railway lands and east and west downtown, for additional residential development as they are better suited for that purpose. Recognize that employment lands must be maintained to ensure the long term growth of the City as it is becoming increasingly difficult to find industrial/commercial sites in the City.

- Allow mixed uses on the Quays, including residential.

- Use the introduction of residential uses as part of an overall investment strategy as it will assist in the revitalization of the area and encourage the 24 hour use of the District.

Zoning Issues and Recommendations

- Develop a flexible zoning approach that will allow the introduction of new business uses.

- Ensure that existing operations can continue as permitted uses and do not become legal non-conforming uses.

- Develop Performance Zoning that would address issues of business compatibility related to noise, emissions and storage and that may have different performance standards for subareas within the District.

Image and Operational Issues and Recommendations

- Build a business park for the next century that will incorporate the features that businesses will need such as telecommunications, transportation, public transit and an attractive and safe environment.

- Upgrade the image, landscaping and physical infrastructure of the area by adding lighting, curbing, sidewalks, fibre optic cable, signage, tree planting and other amenities to a level that is competitive with business parks. Recognize the physical limitations related to introducing landscaping along the dock walls.

- Continue with the "Greening of the Port District" plan as a means of improving the image of the area.

- Commit the financial resources to the strategic transportation improvements that are necessary for the short and long term functioning and growth of the area as a business district. This would include maintaining and enhancing all of the existing modes of transportation including rail, shipping and roads. At a minimum, improvements to the Cheery Street bridge and intersection, the Don Roadway entrance and realignment of Unwin around the cooling channel should be made in the short term.

- Maintaining and improving public transit access into the Port District is essential to the area's ability to maintain existing companies and attract future businesses and employees. Establishing regular and rapid service to the area is a priority and should be undertaken regardless of the TTC's current service standards.

- Establish Cherry and Leslie Streets as the public's main routes into the District while continuing to minimize car, truck and recreational conflicts by separating traffic modes as much as possible.

- Establish the Lake Shore intersections at Cherry Street, the Don Roadway, Carlaw Avenue and Leslie Street as transportation gateways into the District and ensure that they are designed to handle truck movements.

Competitiveness Issues and Recommendations

- Look beyond the land use policies for the District and develop mechanisms and programs that:

- provide land and operating costs at competitive levels with other industrial and port areas,

- offset the price premium for constructing in the area,

- allow for longer term leases at fair rates that approach the equivalent of property ownership,

- allow for land price differences for varying uses.

- Recognize and build upon TEDCO' Soil and Groundwater Management Plan in order to address concerns about possible soil contamination so that companies can have access to reliable information about site conditions, develop cost effective programs for clean-ups if necessary and obtain financing for future investment. Mechanisms related to the provision of incentives or compensation for environmental remediation should be developed.

- TEDCO should meet with all existing tenants to review their present and future requirements and to provide help and encouragement to these businesses to that they will make further commitments and investments.

- A comprehensive marketing strategy for the Port area needs to be developed and implemented in order to attract businesses to the area.

- Support companies that want to make new investment in the very near future by developing lease structures and terms that will allow this development to proceed as soon as possible.

- Use business relocation as a strategy for stabilizing the area by moving heavier industrial uses to more suitable and affordable locations.

- Develop new tools and mechanisms for financing the improvements that need to be made to the area including the possible use of tax grants under a Community Improvement Plan and tax increment financing.

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the report (July 1999) from Urban Planning and Development Services, titled "Unlocking Toronto's Port Lands - Directions for the Future", which was forwarded to Members of Council under separate cover.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following joint communication (July 10, 1999) from Councillors McConnell and Layton, addressed to the Planning and Transportation Committee and Toronto Community Council:

As directed by Council, we convened a meeting of the Portlands Forum to discuss the new planning document for the portlands. The group met within two days of the release of the document to provide initial comment and reaction to the report. Notes and recommendations are below and we hope that you will adopt them.

We thank the participants for their dedication in joining us on yet another beautiful Saturday afternoon to discuss this important area of the city.

Recommendations:

Here are the areas of consensus which were identified be conveyed from the Portlands Forum in the form of recommendations:

(1) It is recommended that the further development of the Plan for the Portlands effectively address the issues below:

- Emphasize Carlaw as a potential gateway as well as encourage access to the waterfront for families and children.

- Connection could be provided from Carlaw/Commissioners on the west edge of the turning basin to a bridge (floating? etc.) across the ship channel to the east end of the Cherry Beach area.

- Need to provide much better access to the public to the open spaces at Clarke (Cherry) beach for recreational purposes. Recreation needs of the whole city can be met here and this should be one of the priorities for the new planning.

- Need more detail on the greenspace and access in subsequent plans.

- Next Planning report to address the poor air quality issues in the area.

- Stronger emphasis on the LRT plans.

- Consider a "green roof policy" for the Portlands.

- Environmental template/plan including storm water management and food production opportunities should be included in the plan.

- The wildlife corridor should connect to the spit. Height of buildings should be appropriate for birds. Ornithological studies should be considered. Songbird pathways should be improved and strengthened in consultation with provincial birding organizations. Natural habitat and food sources should be enhanced throughout the portlands.

- Identify the rail options to achieve the goals outlined in the plan such as the re-vitalization of the mouth of the Don River.

- Green performance standards for all lands, developments and activities in the port should be developed and applied.

- A design competition for the entire portlands should be considered at appropriate points in the development of ideas.

(2) The Forum urges Council to support the suggestions in the "Unlocking" Report which oppose "big box" uses in the Portlands. The Forum supports the removal of the 4500 sq.m. retail permission in the East Bayfront.

(3) The Forum supports the goal of increasing employment in the portlands, including protecting existing industry.

(4) The Forum recommends that the Portlands Forum be allowed to spawn a business sector sub group which can meet in parallel with the citizens to facilitate the involvement of as many affected businesses as possible.

(5) The Forum recommends that the City establish and fund a facilitator to assist with the public consultations.

(6) The Planning Department, in conjunction with the Task Force to Bring Back the Don, Ward Councillors and the Works Department undertake a full consideration of options for the Don River re-routing should be undertaken. A special meeting of experts and interested citizens should be convened to sort out the merits of the options. Full documentation of studies already done should be made available for this process. Flooding, groundwater and soil remediation issues should also be considered.

Meeting Notes of the Portlands Forum, Jimmy Simpson Community Centre, July 10th, 1999.

Approximately 35 people were in attendance, representing residents especially from south Riverdale, Corktown, port businesses, retail businesses in south Riverdale and Corktown.

After introductions by meeting Chairs Pam McConnell and Jack Layton, Mike Major -- the chief planner for the area -- presented the newly released report: "Unlocking Toronto's Portlands".

Considerable discussion followed:

Here is a selection of the issues / questions raised in the discussion of the "Unlocking" Report (these are in bullet/note form):

1. Foot of the spit and Marina -- let's open it up to the public, provide more access for the public to visit, flow through the site, connect to Leslie Street Spit more easily, etc.

2. Carlaw's connection into the Portlands could be a special place, with lots of potential. It's also an area which is park deficient.

3. There's no way to get to the waterfront from s. Riverdale to the waterfront safely and easily, without a car. This could be improved.

4. Concerns by industry about the impact of residential adjacent to industrial activities

5. There was considerable variation of views about what to do with the mouth of Don River. Essentially, the three options were: (i) leave it as is, (ii) redirect the Don River through the 480 Lakeshore East site, with a marsh, (iii) redirect the Don to the south east, into and through the ship channel to a large marsh east of Cherry beach in the outer harbour.

6. There was considerable variety in people's views on the place and extent of residential development within the Portlands.

--------

The Toronto Community Council, reports for the information of Council, during consideration of the foregoing matter, having also had before it the following report/communications, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (July 9, 1999) from Mr. Tim W. Bermingham, Blake, Cassels & Graydon obo Home Depot

- (July 13, 1999) from Mr. Michael J. Thomas, Executive Director, (QUEBA) Queen East Business Association

- (July 13, 1999) Mr. John Wilson, Vice-Chair, Task Force to Bring Back the Don

- (July 14, 1999) from Mr. Tony O'Donohue, Environmental Probe Ltd.

- (July 15, 1999) from Mr. John Miolla, Commodore, Outer Harbour Sailing Federation

- (July 14, 1999) from Mr. Larry Whatmore, Director, Ontario Sailing Association

- (July 14, 1999) from Mr. Babak Abbaszadeh, Commodore, St. James Town Sailing Club

- (July 6, 1999) from Mr. Bill Mackenzie, Toronto Windsurfing Club

- (July 14, 1999) from Mr. John D. Morand, CEO and General Manager, Toronto Port Authority

- (July 15, 1999) from Mr. Peter C. Cotton, Member of the Board, Aquatic Park Sailing Club

- (May 14, 1997) from Mr. Dalton Shipway

- (July 14, 1999) from Ms. Linda Torney, President, Toronto and York Region Labour Council

--------

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. James Harbell, Stikeman & Elliott;

- Mr. Peter Smith, Port Lands Citizen Action Committee;

- Mr. Dalton C. Shipway, Watersheds United;

- Mr. Gerald S. Swinkin, Blake, Cassels & Graydon;

- Mr. Paul Dineen TABIA & OCBIA;

- Ms. Linda Torney, Labour Council of Toronto/York;

- Mr. Dale Martin, United Castan;

- Mr. Bill Mackenzie, Toronto Windsurfing Club;

- Mr. N. E. Davidson, Ted Davidson Planning & Development;

- Mr. Stanley M. Makuch, Cassels Brock & Blackwell;

- Mr. Jerry Sprackman, J. Sprackman The Docks;

- Mr. Warren Sorensen, Sorensen Gravely Lowes Planning Associates Inc.; and

- Mr. Jim Neff, Toronto, Ontario.

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 20, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To comment on recommendations from the July 12, 1999 Planning and Transportation Committee and July 15, 1999 Toronto Community Council meetings regarding a model for a Land Management Partnership for the Port Lands and the hiring of a facilitator for the community consultation process for the Port Lands Part II Plan.

Source of Funds:

Funds not to exceed $40,000 are required from the Corporate Contingency Account for the hiring of a community consultation consultant.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

1. The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be authorized to retain, in consultation with TEDCO, a facilitator to coordinate the public and stakeholder consultation process that will provide input into future reporting on planning directions for the Port Lands Part II Official Plan and that the consultation process be extended from two to four months.

2. Council allocate funds not exceeding $40,000 from the Corporate Contingency Account to retain the facilitator.

3. Recommendation 5 of the Urban Planning and Development Services report dated June 28, 1999 be substituted with the following:

That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and TEDCO be requested to report jointly on:

- a review of the experience of other international waterfront cities in regenerating areas like the Port Lands; and

- appropriate land management models for the Port Lands at the time the final planning report and any implementation strategy are submitted.

Comments:

1.0 Background

At its meeting of July 12, 1999, Planning and Transportation Committee considered my June 28, 1999 report entitled "Unlocking Toronto's Port Lands - Directions for the Future" and requested, among other things, that I report directly to City Council for its meeting on July 27, 1999, on the following issues:

- an extension of the consultation process from two to four months;

- the source of any additional funds required to implement the Committee's recommendation 1(a) respecting an expansion of the consultative process along similar lines as that implemented for the F.G. Gardiner East Dismantling Project; and

- in consultation with TEDCO and the Ward Councillors, on an amended recommendation to replace recommendation 5 of the report (June 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

These recommendations were also adopted by Toronto Community Council at its meeting of July 15, 1999.

2.0 A Facilitated Approach to Public Consultation

Planning and Transportation Committee has recommended a public consultation process similar to that used for the F.G. Gardiner East Dismantling process. Essentially, this process involved the retention of a consultant specializing in facilitating community consultation to help coordinate the consultation process.

"Unlocking Toronto's Port Lands" puts forward a bold new planning vision that is intended to focus discussion around the future of the Port Lands and to bring together the various, often competing, interests in a shared vision for the area. If individual stakeholders continue to pursue their interests in isolation from each other, the true potential of the Port Lands as a special waterfront place will never be "unlocked".

In order to achieve a shared vision, further consultation with the Port Lands Community Forum, other community and business groups, BIAs, area land owners, industrialists, and other businesses is necessary. The facilitator would only carry out the following responsibilities:

- in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, develop a format for the establishment of meetings, exchange of ideas and proposals, documenting areas of agreement, within the parameters already established by City Council;

- canvass stakeholders with staff from Urban Planning and Development Services and TEDCO;

- organize and facilitate public meetings including booking venues, notifying parties and preparing and distributing meeting minutes; and

- document concerns and areas of agreement.

It is anticipated that funds of approximately $40,000 will be required for this purpose. As requested by Toronto Community Council at its meeting of July 15, 1999 the public consultation process will be extended from two to four months.

While the public consultation process is on-going, it will be necessary to draw upon the expertise of other City staff like Economic Development, Finance and Parks and Recreation. Corporate staff support is essential if the planning vision for the Port Lands and any implementation strategy are to be advanced further.

3.0 Land Management

Experience in cities like Barcelona, New York and London has shown that there must be one, coordinated direction for all the political and investment decisions that have to be made to revitalize large areas like the Port Lands. In all of these cities a single agency, representative of all those with a land, financial or jurisdictional interest in the area and operating under a master plan and business arrangement, was created. A less formal and "made in Toronto" approach might be used for the Port Lands.

My earlier report recommended that a consultant be retained to investigate various models for a Land Management Partnership. Staff have discussed this issue further with TEDCO and there is agreement that this work should be done in-house. As the major land owner and landlord in the area, TEDCO should play a leadership role and brings a certain expertise to bear on this important issue. Urban Planning and Development Services and TEDCO should report jointly on the experience of other international waterfront cities and an appropriate land management model for the Port Lands at the time the final planning report and any implementation strategy are being submitted.

Contact Name:

Michael Major

Telephone: 392-0760

Fax: 392-1330

E-mail: mmajor@toronto.ca)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications:

(i) (July 11, 1999) from Ms. Joan Doiron, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee, advising that the Pedestrian Committee is interested in being involved in the decision-making process with respect to the Port Lands Part II Plan;

(ii) (July 19, 1999) from Mr. Andrew Judge, President, South East Toronto Industrial Awareness Organization, advising that the Organization is in support of the recommendations of the Toronto Community Council with respect to the Port Lands Part II Plan;

(iii) (July 26, 1999) from Mr. Christopher J. Williams, Aird & Berlis, Barristers and Solicitors, on behalf of 1147390 Ontario Limited, in support of the recommendations contained in the report, entitled "Unlocking Toronto's Port Lands: Directions for the Future";

(iv) (July 26, 1999) from Mr. Alfredo Romano, Vice President, United Castan Corporation, CASTAN, in support of the recommendations contained in the report, entitled "Unlocking Toronto's Port Lands: Directions for the Future"; and

(v) (July 15, 1999) from Mr. John Miolla, Commodore, Outer Harbour Sailing Federation, submitting comments on the report, entitled "Unlocking Toronto's Port Lands: Directions for the Future".)

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, received this Clause, for information.)

(a) Appeal of Denial of Application for A Boulevard Cafe - 178 Bathurst Street (C/a for 659 Queen Street West) (Trinity-Niagara)

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of this matter sine die:

(June 29, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Respecting Appeal of Denial of Application for A Boulevard Cafe - 178 Bathurst Street (C/A for 659 Queen Street West) (Trinity-Niagara), and recommending that:

(1) City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe at 178 Bathurst Street (c/a 659 Queen Street West); OR

(2) City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe fronting 178 Bathurst Street (c/a 659 Queen Street West), as shown on Appendix 'A', notwithstanding the negative response to the public notice, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Mr. Tom Patterson, Owner, The Paddock, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(b) Appeal of Denial of Application for A Boulevard Cafe - 3-5 Isabella Street (C/a - 625 Yonge Street) (Downtown)

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on September 14, 1999:

(June 29, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Service, District 1, respecting Appeal of Denial of Application for A Boulevard Cafe - 3-5 Isabella Street (C/A - 625 Yonge Street) (Downtown), and recommending that:

(1) City Council deny the applicant's request to operate a boulevard cafe fronting 3-5 Isabella Street, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; OR

(2) (a) City Council approve the boulevard cafe application fronting 3-5 Isabella Street, the cafe be required to close and clear by 11:00 p.m., 7 days a week, as set out in Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(b) should City Council approve the boulevard cafe application, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Service be requested to report back at the end of the 1999 cafe season on the operation of the cafe.

(c) 333 Bloor Street East - Discharge of Historical Designation and Heritage Easement Agreement (Downtown)

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on September 14, 1999:

(June 29, 1999) from the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board respecting 333 Bloor Street East - Discharge of Historical Designation and Heritage Easement Agreement (Downtown), Recommending that the Toronto Community Council not support the repeal of the designation By-law 107-89 nor the discharge of the heritage easement agreement CA32714 for the property at 333 Bloor Street East (formerly known as 321 Bloor Street East, the Confederation Life Insurance Company Building).

(d) 10 Shorncliffe Avenue, Removal Of Three Private Trees (Midtown)

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on September 14, 1999:

(i) (June 4, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism respecting 10 Shorncliffe Avenue, Removal of Three Private Trees (Midtown), and recommending that City Council:

(1) issue a permit for tree removal conditional on:

(i) the trees in question not being removed until permitted construction and/or demolition related activities in accordance with plans approved under the building permit application for the subject project commence which warrant the destruction of the trees; and

(ii) the applicant agreeing to plant replacement trees to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism;

(2) refuse to issue a permit for tree removal, requiring the applicant to incorporate the trees into the plans for the new house and landscape.

(i) (June 21, 1999) from Mr. David Mongeau

(ii) (Undated) from Ms. Audrey Loeb

(iii) (July 14, 1999) from Mr. David C. Mongeau.

(e) Appeal - Driveway Widening - 15 Fulton Avenue (Don River)

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on September 14, 1999:

(June 30, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1 respecting Appeal - Driveway Widening - 15 Fulton Avenue (Don River), and recommending that City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit driveway widening at 15 Fulton Avenue, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Mr. David Taylor, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(f) Final Report - Rezoning Application No. 199003 for 40 Colgate Avenue, 309 and 355 Logan Avenue to Permit 78 Semi-detached Houses and 28 Townhouses (Don River)

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following final report:

(June 18, 1999) from the Commissioner or Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Rezoning Application No. 199003 for 40 Colgate Avenue, 309 and 355 Logan Avenue, to permit the construction of 106 semi-detached houses and townhouses with rear yard parking.

(g) Danforth Avenue, From Broadview Avenue to Dewhurst Boulevard - Installation of Parking Meters on the Flankage of Various Intersecting Streets. (Don River)

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on October 12, 1999:

(May 31, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1 respecting Danforth Avenue, From Broadview Avenue to Dewhurst Boulevard - Installation of Parking Meters on the Flankage of Various Intersecting Streets (Don River), and recommending:

(1) That the parking regulations outlined in Appendix A of this report be adjusted/amended as indicated; and

(2) That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

(h) Intersection of Erskine Avenue and Elvina Gardens - All-way "Stop" Sign Control (North Toronto)

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(June 28, 1999) Director, Transportation Services District 1 respecting Intersection of Erskine Avenue and Elvina Gardens - All-way "Stop" Sign Control (North Toronto), and recommending that this report be received for information.

(i) Permit Parking on Craighurst Avenue Between Duplex Avenue and Rosewell Avenue (North Toronto)

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Toronto Community Council on the implementation of permit parking on Craighurst Avenue between Duplex Avenue and Rosewell Avenue and having requested the City Clerk to conduct a formal poll as soon as possible of residents on that block concerning the establishment of permit parking:

(June 29, 1999) from Councillor Walker

(j) Poll Request - St. Clair Avenue West, Between Westmount Avenue and Winona Drive (Davenport)

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to conduct an informal poll on St. Clair Avenue West between Westmount Avenue and Winona Drive to determine the feasibility of establishing a B.I.A.

(June 22, 1999) from Councillor Disero

(k) Bayview Avenue, Between Balliol Street And Soudan Avenue (East York And North Toronto)

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(July 3, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1 respecting Bayview Avenue, Between Balliol Street and Soudan Avenue (East York and North Toronto), and recommending that this report be received for the information of Toronto Community Council.

(l) Belsize Drive Between Mt. Pleasant Road and Harwood Road - Proposed Installation of Speed Humps (North Toronto)

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on September 14, 1999, in order for the Ward Councillors to distribute information to the community:

(July 5, 1999) Director, Transportation Services District 1 respecting Belsize Drive Between Mt. Pleasant Road and Harwood Road - Proposed Installation of Speed Humps (North Toronto), and recommending that this report be received for information.

(m) Financial Support to the Community Safety Project At Maurice Cody Public School / Maurice Cody Community Centre (North Toronto)

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(July 7, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism respecting Financial Support to the Community Safety Project at Maurice Cody Public School/Maurice Cody Community Centre (North Toronto), and recommending that this report be received for information.

(n) Korea Town Street Sign Proposal

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to investigate the possibility of converting street signs in the area designated in the correspondence from the Korea Town Development Association to reflect the importance of the Korean business community, such investigation to include the possibility of sharing the cost of such signs:

(July 13, 1999) from Councillors Pantalone and Silva

(o) Installation of Speed Humps - Conducting A Poll - Rosemount Avenue; Delaware Avenue; Concord Avenue and Shaw Street (Davenport)

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to conduct a poll for the installation of speed humps on the following streets:

(a) Rosemount Avenue (between Dufferin Street and Oakwood Avenue)

(b) Delaware Avenue (between Hallam Street and Northumberland Street)

(c) Concord Avenue (between Hallam Street and Northumberland Street)

(d) Shaw Street (between Dupont Street and Bloor Street West):

(July 15, 1999) from Councillors Disero and Fotinos.

Respectfully submitted,

PAM McCONNELL

Chair

Toronto, July 15, 1999

(Report No. 11 of The Toronto Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999.)

Nearest Intersection:	South-east corner of Bay Street and Charles Street.

Project Description:	To construct a mixed use building containing 154 residential units with retail at grade.

Official Plan Designation:	HDMCR 'A'	Site Specific Provision:	311-78
Zoning District:	CR T6.0 C1.0 R6.0	Historical Status:	No
Height Limit (m):	46.0	Site Plan Control:	Yes

Site Area:	1006.6 m²	Height:	Storeys:		21 + Mech.
Frontage:			Metres:		76.80
Depth:
			Indoor		Outdoor
Ground Floor:		Parking Spaces:	107
Residential GFA:	11655.0 m²	Loading Docks:	1	G
Non-Residential GFA:	280.0 m²	(number, type)
Total GFA:	11935.0 m²

Proposed Density
Residential Density: 11.58	Non-Residential Density: 0.28	Total Density: 11.86

Nearest Intersection:	Northwest corner of De Lisle Avenue and Yonge Street.

Project Description:	To construct a 14-storey apartment building to an existing 2-storey retail building on Yonge St. and an underground municipal public parking garage.

Site Area:	7744.8 m²	Height:	Storeys:		14
Frontage:			Metres:		42.82
Depth:
			Indoor		Outdoor
Ground Floor:		Parking Spaces:	239
Residential GFA:	24326.0 m²	Loading Docks:	3	B
Non-Residential GFA:	6916.0 m²	(number, type)	2	G
Total GFA:	31242.0 m²

Proposed Density
Residential Density: 3.14	Non-Residential Density: 0.89	Total Density: 4.05

Highway	Between	Times or Days	Direction
Springhurst Avenue	Dufferin Street and Tyndall Avenue (east branch)	Anytime, from and including Fri., Aug. 20, 1999, to and including Mon., Sept. 6, 1999	From east to west

Intersection on Portion of Road	Direction	Turns Prohibited	Times or Days
Springhurst Avenue and Jameson Avenue	Westbound	Left	7:00 a.m to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mon. to Fri. from and including Fri., Aug. 20, 1999 to and including Mon., Sept. 6, 1999
Strachan Avenue between Fleet Street and Lake Shore boulevard West	Northbound and Southbound	U-turn	Anytime, from and including Fri., Aug. 20, 1999 to and including Mon., September 6, 1999

Highway	Side	Between	Prohibited Times or Days
Cowan Avenue	West	Springhurst Avenue and the south end	Anytime, from and including Fri., Aug. 20, 1999, to and including Mon., Sept. 6, 1999
Dufferin Street	East	Exhibition Park and Queen Street West	Anytime, from and including Fri., Aug. 20, 1999, to and including Mon. Sept. 6, 1999
Dufferin Street	West	Exhibition Park and a point 36.6 metres north of Springhurst Avenue	Anytime, from and including Fri., Aug. 20, 1999, to and including Mon., Sept. 6, 1999
Dufferin Street	West	King Street West and Queen Street West	Anytime, from and including Fri. Aug. 20, 1999, to and including Mon., Sept. 6, 1999
Fleet Street	Both	Strachan Avenue and Bathurst Street	Anytime, from and including Fri., Aug. 20, 1999, to and including Mon. Sept. 6, 1999
Fort Rouille Street	Both	Springhurst Avenue and the south end	Anytime, from and including Fri., Aug. 20, 1999, to and including Mon. Sept. 6, 1999
Gladstone Avenue	West	Queen Street West and Peel Street	Anytime, from and including Fri., Aug. 20, 1999, to and including Mon. Sept. 6, 1999
Jameson Avenue	East	Springhurst Avenue and Queen Street West	Anytime, from and including Fri., Aug. 20, 1999 to and including Mon., September 6, 1999
Peel Avenue	Both	Dufferin Street and Gladstone Avenue	Anytime, from and including Fri. Aug. 20, 1999, to and including Mon. Sept. 6, 1999
Spencer Avenue	East	Springhurst Avenue and the south end	Anytime, from and including Fri. Aug. 20, 1999, to and including Mon. Sept. 6, 1999
Springhurst Avenue	North	Dufferin Street and Jameson Avenue	Anytime, from and including Fri., Aug. 20, 1999 to and including Mon., Sept. 6, 1999
Tyndall Avenue	East	Thornburn Avenue and the south end	Anytime, from and including Fri. Aug. 20, 1999, to and including Mon. Sept. 6, 1999